United States v. Love ( 2021 )

Case: 21-60049 Document: 00515948708 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 22, 2021
No. 21-60049 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Bilal Hamid Love,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-50-1
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bilal Hamid Love, federal prisoner # 20906-043, pleaded guilty to:
importation of a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952; and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). On 15 March 2019, he was sentenced to, inter
alia, 168-months’ imprisonment.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60049 Document: 00515948708 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 21-60049
Love challenges the district court’s denying his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release due to the COVID-19
pandemic. He asserts he is entitled to such release due to the extraordinary
and compelling circumstances COVID-19 poses in a prison setting, including
in the light of his health conditions (hypertension and being overweight).
A district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence if, after
considering any relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors, it finds:
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction”. 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Our court reviews the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for abuse of discretion, giving deference to the district court’s
application of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting the district court “is in a superior
position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual
case”).
The court concluded Love was not entitled to compassionate release
because: his health conditions did not create an extraordinary or compelling
circumstance; and, in the alternative, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not
weigh in his favor.
Our court has held hypertension and other conditions that are
“managed effectively by medication” and do not “substantially diminish the
ability of the defendant to provide self-care”, see U.S.S.G. § 1b1.13 cmt.
n.1(a), are not extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
compassionate release, particularly for defendants like Love, who have not
“already served the lion’s share of their sentences”. See United States v.
Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433–35 (5th Cir. 2021) (denying compassionate
release to “an otherwise healthy defendant with two, well-controlled,
chronic medical conditions . . . who had completed less than half of his
sentence”).
In the alternative, the court determined that, even if there were
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting Love’s release, he would
be a danger to society and should not be released. The court relied on the
2
Case: 21-60049 Document: 00515948708 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/22/2021
No. 21-60049
nature and circumstances of Love’s offense and the need to protect the public
from further crimes of defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(C).
In sum, Love has not established the court based its decision on an
error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence when it
determined that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a compassionate-
release reduction. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
AFFIRMED.
3