Court Opinion

ID: 9961161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 00:01:07.605958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:21.293320
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50400            Document: 48-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/17/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                    No. 23-50400
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                                   April 17, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                               Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Kimberly Bailey,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 7:20-CR-123-1
                   ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Kimberly Bailey, federal prisoner # 48631-480, appeals the denial of
her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On
appeal and filing pro se, Bailey argues that: (1) the district court abused its
discretion by failing to identify any “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
to justify compassionate release; and (2) by failing to identify what factors
were considered in reaching its decision.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50400        Document: 48-1         Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                  No. 23-50400

       Bailey suffers from a pituitary macroadenoma, a type of brain tumor,
and her appellate briefing indicates that the tumor is malignant. Accordingly,
she applied for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The
district court judge (who was also the sentencing judge) succinctly denied
Bailey’s motion, stating only: “The Court having considered all the
pleadings in this case, the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),
and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,
DENIES the Defendant’s Motion on its merits.”
       District courts may reduce terms of imprisonment if, after considering
the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court finds the
reduction is justified by “extraordinary and compelling reasons” and would
be consistent with applicable policy statements from the Sentencing
Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). Because relief under this
provision is discretionary, a district court can refuse it based solely on the
§ 3553(a) factors. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 359-60 (5th Cir.
2021). We review the denial of Bailey’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an
abuse of discretion, which occurs when a district court “bases its decision on
an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” or denies
relief without “sufficiently articulat[ing] its reasons.” United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693–94 (5th Cir. 2020). In denying a
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, “the district court must provide specific factual
reasons, including but not limited to due consideration of the § 3553(a)
factors[.]” Id. at 693 (footnote omitted).
       The district court did not here give such “specific factual reasons for
its decision.” Id. at 693. The district court judge “only announce[d] that the
appropriate analysis has been done.” United States v. Stanford, 79 F.4th 461,
463 (5th Cir. 2023). Such limited analysis here deprives this Court of its
ability to conduct meaningful review because we “have no reliable indication
of the reason for the court’s decision to deny relief.” Id. at 464. Like the order

                                        2
Case: 23-50400       Document: 48-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 04/17/2024

                                No. 23-50400

at issue in Stanford, we cannot determine whether Bailey’s motion was
denied because the § 3553(a) factors do not warrant early release, or because
her medical situation is insufficiently “extraordinary and compelling,” or
both. Id. The lack of explanation is concerning here because Bailey claims her
tumor is malignant and that she has received inadequate treatment, and this
Court has previously held that a terminal prognosis can constitute an
extraordinary and compelling basis for a § 3582(c)(1) motion. Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 692–93. To be clear, we do not suggest that the able district judge,
who was also the sentencing judge, has not given all the attention due this
post-sentencing matter. Rather, we remand here solely because we lack an
adequate record to review Bailey’s claim that she suffers from terminal
cancer for which she has received inadequate care.
       Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order denying
Bailey’s   motion   for   compassionate     release   and   REMAND         for
reconsideration consistent with this opinion.

                                      3