Court Opinion

ID: 9891462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-18 18:00:31.426932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:26.117745
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40443        Document: 00516935493             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/18/2023

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

                                                                                            FILED
                                      No. 22-40443                                   October 18, 2023
                                 consolidated with                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                 Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065                                    Clerk
                                   _____________

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   William Samuel McLean, Jr.,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeals from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                       USDC Nos. 4:93-CR-22-1, 4:93-CR-47-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         William Samuel McLean, Jr., federal prisoner # 04259-078, filed a
   motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub.
   L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), and 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that his underlying medical conditions in
   combination with the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic constituted

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40443      Document: 00516935493          Page: 2     Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                   No. 22-40443
                             c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065

   “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release. McLean
   further argued that given the First Step Act’s elimination of sentence
   stacking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the severity of the sentence he received
   for his firearm offenses should be treated as an “extraordinary and
   compelling” reason for a sentence reduction. The district court denied
   McLean’s motion by order of March 18, 2022.                 The district court
   reconsidered this denial but again denied McLean compassionate release by
   order of June 27, 2022. McLean appealed this order.
          McLean subsequently filed other motions to reconsider his motion for
   compassionate release. On January 17, 2023, in a lengthy and comprehensive
   order that recounted the full history of this litigation, the district court
   granted McLean’s request for reconsideration and reconsidered his motion
   for a sentence reduction. Following reconsideration, the district court again
   denied McLean a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). McLean also
   appealed this order.
          Pending before the court are the consolidated appeals of both orders
   of the district court granting McLean’s requests for reconsideration but
   denying compassionate release. As a preliminary matter, we address our
   jurisdiction to review McLean’s appeal of the district court’s June 27, 2022,
   order granting reconsideration and denying compassionate release. This
   court has an obligation to examine the basis of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte
   if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “Whether
   an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III
   requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” United States v.
   Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bailey v.
   Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)). This court reviews questions
   of jurisdiction de novo. Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792, 798 (5th Cir. 2018).
   Here, McLean’s appeal of the district court’s June 27, 2022, order has been
   rendered moot by the district court’s subsequent orders granting

                                          2
Case: 22-40443      Document: 00516935493         Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                   No. 22-40443
                             c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065

   reconsideration of the compassionate release issue. Therefore, we
   DISMISS appeal No. 22-40443 as moot.
          We address McLean’s remaining appeals on their merits. A district
   court may grant a prisoner compassionate release pursuant to
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.
   2021). Movants must show three criteria to obtain relief: (1) “extraordinary
   and compelling reasons” must justify a sentence reduction; (2) the reduction
   must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements;
   and (3) early release must be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
   sentencing factors. United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1089 (5th Cir.
   2022) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). As the policy statement at U.S.S.G.
   § 1B1.13 (p.s.) applies only to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions filed by the Bureau
   of Prisons, the district court was bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and the
   § 3553(a) factors in this case. See Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393.
          District courts may deny compassionate release if the § 3553(a)
   factors weigh against it, and this court regularly affirms denials based solely
   on a determination that the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors
   “independently support[s] its judgment.” Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1093 n.8; see
   Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v.
   Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). In its order denying
   compassionate release, the district court articulated several reasons under
   § 3553(a) for denying compassionate release. On appeal, McLean disagrees
   with the district court’s conclusions, but he has not shown that the
   conclusions were based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment
   of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Because the district court
   was “in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under
   § 3553(a) in the individual case,” we will defer to the district court’s
   balancing of those factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (quoting Gall v. United

                                         3
Case: 22-40443     Document: 00516935493         Page: 4    Date Filed: 10/18/2023

                                  No. 22-40443
                            c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065

   States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). McLean’s contention that the district court
   abused its discretion in denying him compassionate release is unavailing.
         For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS appeal No. 22-40443 as
   moot, and we AFFIRM the district court’s holdings in appeal Nos. 23-
   40064 and 23-40065.

                                        4