United States v. Boswell

Opinion

Case: 25-30668 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2026

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

No. 25-30668 FILED May 26, 2026 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Joseph Boswell, Sr.,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CR-162-1 ______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Joseph Boswell, Sr., federal prisoner # 20966-035, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his 60-month sentence for tax evasion. Boswell argued in his motion, and argues on appeal, that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 821 of the Guidelines because the amendment

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-30668 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2026

No. 25-30668

“specifically reduces offense levels for tax-related offenses under U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1” and limited the use of upward adjustments for “sophisticated means,” U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(2), and “aggravating role,” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a), which were used to enhance his offense level. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). Amendment 821 to the Guidelines includes three parts, none of which even remotely amend or affect the guideline provisions covering tax offenses or the guideline enhancements for “sophisticated means” and “aggravating role.” Not only is Boswell’s argument incorrect, but we also agree with the Government’s position that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 821. Accordingly, Boswell has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. See Calton, 900 F.3d at 710. The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.