United States v. Gier

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-30358
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 24-30358 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/26/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-30358 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ March 26, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Karen Hawkins Gier,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:21-CR-288-1 ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Karen Hawkins Gier, federal prisoner # 79555-509, is serving a 70- month term of imprisonment, imposed following her jury-trial conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. She challenges the district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to Amendment 821 to the Sentencing

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-30358 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/26/2025

No. 24-30358

Guidelines. She contends the court erred by denying her a reduction under Guideline § 4C1.1 (2023) (explained infra) without: reconsidering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors; considering her contentions as to why a reduction was warranted; or giving sufficient reasons for the denial as a matter of discretion. Our court reviews the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion; on the other hand, “a district court’s conclusion that it could not reduce a sentence based on an interpretation or application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo”. United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. E.g., United States v. Roussel, 705 F.3d 184, 195 (5th Cir. 2013). Under § 3582(c)(2), a sentence reduction is not authorized if the amendment at issue is not applicable to defendant or does not have the effect of lowering the Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2), p.s.; see also Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826–27 (2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) only authorizes reduction consistent with § 1B1.10). Our court need not consider Gier’s contentions because she was not eligible for relief. In conjunction with her sentencing, and based on part of her Guidelines calculations, Gier received a four-level role enhancement pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.1(a) (providing enhancement to defendant’s base offense level “[i]f the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive”). Consequently, she was disqualified from receiving the § 4C1.1 reduction (allowing two-offense-level reduction for defendants with zero criminal- history points and who meet other requirements outlined in § 4C1.1(a)). See United States v. Morales, 122 F.4th 590, 597 (5th Cir. 2024) (holding that, “[i]f a defendant either received a § 3B1.1 enhancement or engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise, [s]he is disqualified from receiving the

2 Case: 24-30358 Document: 64-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/26/2025

[§ 4C1.1] reduction” and affirming denial of § 4C1.1 reduction based solely upon defendant’s receipt of § 3B1.1 enhancement); U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a)(10) (2023). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gier’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. See Calton, 900 F.3d at 710. AFFIRMED.