Court Opinion

ID: 9889337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-09 18:00:23.237334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:46.372087
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20388         Document: 00516924118             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/09/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                       October 9, 2023
                                       No. 22-20388                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Robert Allen Stanford,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:09-CR-342-1
                      ______________________________

   Before King, Smith, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          This appeal arises from Robert Allen Stanford’s pro se Renewed
   Motion for Compassionate Release Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
   and the First Step Act. The district court denied Appellant’s motion for
   compassionate release on July 25, 2022. On appeal, we ordered a limited
   remand of that decision for the district court to explain its reasons for denial.
   United States v. Stanford, 79 F.4th 461, 462 (5th Cir. 2023).

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20388          Document: 00516924118              Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/09/2023

                                          No. 22-20388

           On limited remand, the district court then explained its reasons for
   the denial and reiterated its ruling.                    United States v. Stanford,
   4:09-cr-00342-1, ECF 1591 (Aug. 31, 2023). Specifically, the district court
   analyzed Mr. Stanford’s motion for compassionate release under the Section
   3553 factors. Id. at 2–3. In doing so, the district court explained that
   Mr. Stanford’s offenses were unprecedented and affected a countless
   number of victims, and that Mr. Stanford has an unsatisfied $5.9 billion
   restitution order against him. Id. at 2–3. Further, the district court noted
   that Ralph Janvey, the court-appointed receiver in the case, stated in a notice
   to the district court that Mr. Stanford is actively obstructing efforts to
   compensate victims. Id. at 3. Relying on these considerations, the court held
   that the Section 3553(a) factors and relevant policy considerations justified
   denying Mr. Stanford’s motion for compassionate release. Id. at 3.
           Mr. Stanford now argues that the district court erred by considering
   Mr. Janvey’s notice, which was not part of the criminal record and which
   Mr. Stanford argues would not be admissible in a criminal proceeding.1
   Mr. Stanford also argues that the district court erred by denying his motion
   for compassionate release in light of the evidence that was properly before
   the district court.2

           _____________________
           1
             Mr. Stanford requests that we take judicial notice of his argument that the district
   court wrongfully included Mr. Janvey’s statement when weighing the Section 3552(a)
   factors. We do notice his argument, but it fails. Mr. Stanford’s argument that the district
   court violated his due process rights by considering evidence that would not be admissible
   under the Federal Rules of Evidence lacks merit. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not
   apply at sentencing. Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). Instead, federal courts “‘exercise a wide
   discretion in the sources and types of evidence used’ to craft appropriate sentences.”
   Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2395 (2022) (quoting Williams v. New York,
   337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949)).
           2
               The court GRANTS Appellant’s motion for leave to file supplemental briefing.

                                                     2
Case: 22-20388      Document: 00516924118           Page: 3    Date Filed: 10/09/2023

                                     No. 22-20388

            We review an order denying a motion for compassionate release for
   abuse of discretion. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 186 (5th Cir.
   2023).     Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
   determination that Mr. Stanford’s motion for compassionate release should
   be denied. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020)
   (“[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decisions on an error of law or
   a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”). We AFFIRM.

                                              3