United States v. Cox

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 21-51027
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-51027 Document: 00516727373 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-51027 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 26, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

James Edward Cox,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:17-CR-346-1 ______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * James Edward Cox, federal prisoner # 33500-058, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Cox contends that the district court neglected to articulate specific factual reasons reflecting that it had considered all seven

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 21-51027 Document: 00516727373 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2023

No. 21-51027

of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that it misapplied those factors that it did consider. We review the district court’s denial of a compassionate release motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court was not required in its reasons for denial to expressly address each § 3553(a) factor. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Here, the record sufficiently supports the court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against Cox’s release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). His disagreement with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors does not merit reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.