United States v. Street

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 3, 2023
• Docket: 22-60582
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 22-60582 Document: 00516664422 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

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

No. 22-60582 FILED Summary Calendar March 3, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jerry Street,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17-CR-74-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jerry Street, federal prisoner # 20232-043, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release, wherein he argued, among other things, that his status as the only available caregiver for his elderly mother and stepfather who suffered from debilitating illness was an extraordinary and compelling circumstance warranting early release. We

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-60582 Document: 00516664422 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023

No. 22-60582

review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may modify a defendant’s sentence after it considers the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” A district court errs if, in considering whether to grant a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, it treats the U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 policy statement as binding. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). Although Street contends that the district court erroneously believed that it was bound by the policy statement in § 1B1.13, nothing in the record indicates that the district treated the policy statement as binding. At most, the district court’s order indicates that the court’s decision was informed by the policy statement, which does not amount to an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1090 (5th Cir. 2022). Additionally, Street’s argument that the district court did not consider the evidence he submitted in evaluating his arguments has no merit. Even if the district court did not expressly address that evidence, Street’s pleadings cited and discussed the evidence and the district court stated that it had reviewed his submissions. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022). Because Street otherwise fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release based on its finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances, we do not reach his arguments that the § 3553(a) factors warranted his release. See Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1093 n.8. The order of the district court is AFFIRMED.