Court Opinion

ID: 9364943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 19:00:27.813196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.493861
License: Public Domain

Case: 20-30205         Document: 00516617607             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023

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

                                       No. 20-30205
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                January 20, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Byron Neal,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:07-CR-425-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Byron Neal, federal prisoner # 30456-034, is serving concurrent
   sentences of 360 months of imprisonment and 240 months of imprisonment,
   respectively, which were imposed on his convictions of drug offenses
   involving cocaine base. Neal has appealed from an order of the district court
   denying motions to reduce his sentence under Section 404 of the First Step

         _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-30205      Document: 00516617607           Page: 2     Date Filed: 01/20/2023

                                     No. 20-30205

   Act of 2018, and 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, because Neal raises no
   issues related to the district court’s denial of his § 3582(c)(2) motion, he has
   abandoned any challenge to the denial of that motion. See United States
   v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir. 2006).
          Focusing instead on the district court’s denial of his motion under
   Section 404 of the First Step Act, Neal argues that the denial of his motion
   results in a substantively unreasonable sentence.           This contention is
   foreclosed in light of United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 480 (5th Cir.
   2020), which held that “the substantive reasonableness standard does not
   apply” to denials of a sentence reduction under the First Step Act.
          Neal also contends that the district court erred by failing to adequately
   consider the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and by failing to
   provide a sufficient explanation of its denial of his Section 404 motion for a
   reduction in his sentence of imprisonment. Our review of the district court’s
   decision is deferential and “should not be overly searching.” Concepcion v.
   United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022).
          “[T]he First Step Act [does not] require a district court to make a
   point-by-point rebuttal of the parties’ arguments[;] [a]ll that is required is for
   a district court to demonstrate that it has considered the arguments before
   it.” Id. at 2405. “[A] district court is not required to be persuaded by every
   argument parties make, and it may, in its discretion, dismiss arguments that
   it does not find compelling without a detailed explanation. Nor is a district
   court required to articulate anything more than a brief statement of reasons.”
   Id. at 2404.
          Here, the district court correctly noted that it could consider the
   § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 322 n.8 (5th
   Cir. 2019). The record reflects that the district court gave due consideration
   to the arguments before it, including arguments pertinent to the § 3553(a)

                                           2
Case: 20-30205     Document: 00516617607          Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/20/2023

                                   No. 20-30205

   sentencing factors. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2404-05; Batiste, 980 F.3d
   at 479. Further, the district court adequately explained its reasons for
   refusing to exercise its discretion to reduce Neal’s sentence, see Concepcion,
   142 S. Ct. at 2404-05, noting Neal’s role in a murder conspiracy.
          In view of the foregoing, the decision of the district court is
   AFFIRMED.

                                         3