Court Opinion

ID: 9916985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 01:00:32.002007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:16.607609
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50386        Document: 00517028824             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/10/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-50386
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               January 10, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Robert Michael Handlon,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                              USDC No. 7:12-CR-314-2
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Proceeding pro se, Robert Michael Handlon, federal prisoner # 34932-
   077, contests the district court’s denying his compassionate-release motion
   made under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (permitting term of imprisonment
   modification if court finds “extraordinary and compelling reasons
   warrant[ing] such a reduction”).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50386      Document: 00517028824           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                     No. 23-50386

          Handlon contends the court erred by: relying on clearly-erroneous
   facts in its 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing-factor analysis; and finding he
   failed to assert extraordinary and compelling reasons for his release.
   Regarding the latter, he asserts he: has been successfully rehabilitated; and
   currently    suffers   from   medical       conditions—including,   inter   alia,
   bronchitis—caused by his prior COVID-19 infections. He contends these
   medical conditions are not being properly treated and could be exacerbated if
   he were to contract COVID-19 again. Further, he requests our court transfer
   his proceedings to a different district court.
          Review is for abuse of discretion. E.g., United States v. Cooper, 996
   F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its
   decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
   evidence.”    Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted).      Because, as
   discussed infra, Handlon has not shown the court abused its discretion in
   concluding he failed to present the requisite extraordinary-and-compelling
   reasons, we need not reach his claims regarding the court’s 18 U.S.C.
   § 3553(a) sentencing-factors analysis. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th
   1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022) (“[T]he district court may deny [defendant]’s
   motion without reaching the Section 3553(a) factors if it determines that he
   has not identified ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ justifying his
   release”.); United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022) (“[W]e
   may affirm if another ground in the record supports [the district court’s]
   judgment”. (citation omitted)).
          Assuming Handlon adequately preserved this issue, he has not shown
   the court abused its discretion in rejecting his purported rehabilitation
   contention. The record shows he was: convicted of assault in prison in 2018;
   and sanctioned in prison following the assault for, inter alia, possessing a
   hazardous tool and refusing to obey an order. Additionally, his rehabilitation
   efforts alone are not an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release.

                                           2
Case: 23-50386       Document: 00517028824            Page: 3     Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                                       No. 23-50386

   See 28 U.S.C. § 994(t) (“Rehabilitation of the defendant alone shall not be
   considered an extraordinary and compelling reason.”); Guideline § 1B1.13
   cmt. n.3 (2021) (same); Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 502 (2022)
   (“[T]he First Step Act does not require a district court to accept a movant’s
   argument that evidence of rehabilitation . . . counsel[s] in favor of a sentence
   reduction . . . . All that is required is for a district court to demonstrate that it
   has considered the arguments before it.”).
          Further, Handlon has not shown the court abused its discretion in
   rejecting his medical-condition reason for release because he has not shown
   he suffers from a medical condition that is a terminal illness or substantially
   diminishes his ability to provide self-care while in prison. E.g., United States
   v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433–35 (5th Cir. 2021) (rejecting medical-
   condition contention). Moreover, he has: contracted COVID-19 without
   severe complications; received the COVID-19 vaccine and at least one
   booster; and his prison reported no COVID-19 infections at the time his
   motion was considered. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1099–
   101 (5th Cir. 2022) (concluding court did not abuse its discretion “by
   deciding the conditions at [defendant]’s prison and his medical conditions
   were insufficiently compelling and extraordinary to entitle him to relief”).
   His apprehensions about COVID-19 do not justify relief. See id.; Thompson,
   984 F.3d at 435 (“Fear of COVID doesn’t automatically entitle a prisoner to
   release.”).
          Finally, Handlon requests our court to reassign his proceedings to a
   different district court judge. His request is unavailing because he has not
   shown the court reversibly erred in denying his compassionate-release
   motion. E.g., Johnson v. Harris County, 83 F.4th 941, 947 (5th Cir. 2023)
   (denying request for reassignment because no reversible error); United States
   v. Stanford, 883 F.3d 500, 516–17 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting reassignment
   standard is “a high hurdle”).

                                            3
Case: 23-50386   Document: 00517028824      Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/10/2024

                             No. 23-50386

         AFFIRMED. The request for reassignment is DENIED.

                                  4