United States v. Bickens ( 2021 )

Case: 21-10392 Document: 00516087399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 9, 2021
No. 21-10392
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Andre Bickens,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-68-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan.
Per Curiam:*
Andre Bickens, federal prisoner # 32225-077, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate
release, asserting that the district court failed to address his argument that,
in addition to his medical condition, the district court’s failure to adjust his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10392 Document: 00516087399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2021
No. 21-10392
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) for an undischarged term of
imprisonment entitled him to a reduction in sentence to time served. He has
also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.
In its denial order, the district court addressed only whether Bickens’s
medical condition warranted compassionate release. Although the district
court’s ruling is reviewed under a deferential abuse of discretion standard, to
the extent that the denial order does not indicate that the district court
considered Bickens’s § 5G1.3(b) argument, the record is insufficient to
conduct the required review. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691,
693 (5th Cir. 2020); see also § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the
district court to address Bickens’s argument that the district court’s failure
to adjust his sentence under § 5G1.3(b) is an extraordinary and compelling
reason that warrants a sentence reduction. 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). Bickens’s motion for the appointment of counsel
is carried with the case. Upon entry of the district court’s ruling, this case
shall be returned to this court for a decision on the pending appeal. We
respectfully ask that the district court give this matter expedited attention
given that the government has confirmed Bickens’s upcoming release date of
February 26, 2022.
2