United States v. Cockerham

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: October 15, 2021
• Docket: 19-51037
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-51037 Document: 00516056985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2021

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

FILED October 15, 2021 No. 19-51037 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

John Cockerham,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:07-CR-511-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* John Cockerham, federal prisoner # 97305-180, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. In their respective briefs, the parties disagree as to whether Cockerham has established an extraordinary and compelling reason

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-51037 Document: 00516056985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021

No. 19-51037

warranting his release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (p.s.) and the commentary thereto. We recently determined, however, that district courts considering § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by prisoners are not bound by § 1B1.13 or its commentary. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). In its denial order, the district court indicated that it had considered Cockerham’s motion for compassionate release, the Government’s response, and the entire record; however, the district court failed to provide reasons for denying the motion. Although the district court’s ruling is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, meaningful review is possible only with a statement of reasons for the denial. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain its reasons for the denial of the motion for compassionate release. This court retains jurisdiction, as is customary for limited remands. See, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347, 354-56 (5th Cir. 2018). Upon entry of the district court’s explanation of its reasons for denying the motion, this case shall be returned to this court, and the parties will be allowed an opportunity for supplemental briefing.