United States v. Blanks

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-60544
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-60544 Document: 54-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2024

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

No. 23-60544 FILED April 9, 2024 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Amos Blanks,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 2:20-CR-2-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Amos Blanks, federal prisoner # 22071-043, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that he established extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting release because his health conditions and race made it more likely that he would face serious illness if he were to contract COVID-

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60544 Document: 54-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2024

19. In addition, Blanks maintains that his wife’s death justifies his release so that he can act as the primary caregiver for his minor children. Finally, he argues that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of his release, given the lack of violence in his offense, his acceptance of responsibility, his health issues, his lack of disciplinary infractions, and his completion of prison programs. We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court conducted an independent review of the § 3553(a) factors and concluded that Blanks was not entitled to relief. Blanks has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in this conclusion. See id. at 693. Because the district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the dismissal, it is unnecessary to consider Blanks’s arguments challenging the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, the district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.