United States v. Rubis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: August 13, 2021
• Docket: 20-20581
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 20-20581 Document: 00515977260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2021

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

FILED August 13, 2021 No. 20-20581 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Edwin W. Rubis,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:98-CR-57-5

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Edwin W. Rubis, federal prisoner # 79282-079, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release, asserting that (1) his serious medical conditions combined with the circumstances presented by the COVID-19 pandemic constituted

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-20581 Document: 00515977260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2021

No. 20-20581

extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., comment (n.1(A)); (2) his overall circumstances presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for release pursuant to the catchall provision of § 1B1.13, p.s., comment (n.1(D)); and (3) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) entitled him to a reduction in sentence to time served. The district court denied the motion. In its denial order, the district court denied Rubis relief after “[h]aving considered the motion and the applicable law.” Although the district court’s ruling is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, meaningful review is possible here only with a statement of reasons for the denial. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); see also § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Absent such a statement, we can only speculate as to why the motion was denied. Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain its reasons for the denial. 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, this case shall be returned to this court for a decision on the appeal.