United States v. Martin ( 2021 )

Case: 21-60048 Document: 00516081520 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 4, 2021
No. 21-60048 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Charlie Lee Martin,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:16-CR-70-4
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Charlie Lee Martin, federal prisoner # 03452-043, appeals the denial
of his motion for reconsideration of the denial of compassionate release under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). According to Martin, it was improper for the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60048 Document: 00516081520 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
No. 21-60048
district court to consider U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., because that policy
statement was inapplicable to his motion for compassionate release.
The district court’s decision to deny compassionate release is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283,
286 (5th Cir. 2021). Abuse-of-discretion review also generally applies to a
district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration. United States v.
Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A] court abuses its
discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693
(5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord
Cooper, 996 F.3d at 286.
District courts are not bound by § 1B1.13 or its commentary when
considering § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by prisoners. United States v.
Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). Although the district court
considered § 1B1.13 in this case, the record shows that the court treated it
only as guidance and not as binding. The consideration of § 1B1.13 merely as
guidance was not error. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th
Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021) (No. 20-
7832).
Martin also asserts that the district court erred by relying on
information from the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) that was not credible
regarding the extent of the COVID-19 outbreak at its facilities. A factual
finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the record as a
whole. United States v. Barry, 978 F.3d 214, 217 (5th Cir. 2020). The district
court relied on information from the same BOP website cited by the Federal
Public Defender and the Government in Martin’s compassionate-release
proceedings. Martin has not demonstrated clear error by the district court.
See Barry, 978 F.3d at 217.
2
Case: 21-60048 Document: 00516081520 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2021
No. 21-60048
Lastly, Martin asserts that he is at risk from COVID-19 in prison due
to his documented health conditions. The district court’s consideration of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors is entitled to deference because the district
court is in a superior position to find facts and weigh their import under
§ 3553(a) in the particular case. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Martin has
not shown that the district court abused its discretion in finding that his
health conditions increased his risk from COVID-19 to some degree, but that
the § 3553(a) factors did not support compassionate release. See id. at 693-
94.
AFFIRMED.
3