United States v. Normand

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: November 22, 2021
• Docket: 21-60441
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-60441 Document: 00516103457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021

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

FILED November 22, 2021 No. 21-60441 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Louis Normand,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:20-CR-73-1

Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Proceeding pro se, Louis Normand, federal prisoner # 22091-043, challenges the denial of his motion for compassionate release under the First Step Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He contends the district court erred in concluding he failed to: properly exhaust his administrative

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-60441 Document: 00516103457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021

No. 21-60441

remedies; and demonstrate extraordinary-and-compelling reasons warranted sentence reduction. Denial of a compassionate-release motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The denial may be affirmed “on any basis supported by the record”, such as the court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94 (noting reversal not justified if “the appellate court might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate” (citation omitted)). As reflected above, our court need not consider the district court’s exhaustion and extraordinary-and-compelling circumstances conclusions because it did not abuse its discretion by, alternatively and independently, concluding a sentence reduction was not warranted, based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693– 94 & n.3 (noting “a court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” (citation omitted)). AFFIRMED.