United States v. Miller ( 2021 )

Case: 20-61113 Document: 00515975136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 11, 2021
No. 20-61113 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Angela Bryson Miller,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:10-cr-163-2
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Angela Bryson Miller, federal prisoner # 14832-042, was convicted of
two counts of aiding and abetting the brandishing of a firearm during a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). She
was sentenced to 384 months in prison and five years of supervised release.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61113 Document: 00515975136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-61113
She now appeals the denial of her compassionate-release motion filed under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
A district court disposing of such a motion is bound only by
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United
States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021).
Miller claims the district court committed a wide-variety of errors.
She says the district court (1) failed to consider her heightened susceptibility
to COVID-19 given her various illnesses; (2) inappropriately weighed the
§ 3553(a) factors and failed to give due weight to the First Step Act’s non-
retroactive amendment to § 924(c); and (3) inappropriately weighed her co-
defendant’s recantation of inculpatory statements. 1
Miller failed to establish that the district court “base[d] its decision
on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.”
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (quotation omitted). Instead, Miller claims that
the district court should have weighed the § 3553(a) factors differently and
should have deemed her § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) argument more compelling. But
that is not a basis for overturning the district court. See United States v.
Malone, 828 F.3d 331, 342 (5th Cir. 2016) (“Though Appellant[] may
disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, [her
1 Miller also claims that a sentence reduction is merited because she is the caretaker
for her aging parents. She failed to raise this argument before the district court, and we
therefore do not consider it here. See Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th
Cir. 1999) (“An appellate court may not consider new evidence furnished for the first time
on appeal and may not consider facts which were not before the district court at the time of
the challenged ruling.”).
2
Case: 20-61113 Document: 00515975136 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/11/2021
No. 20-61113
contention] that these factors should have been weighed differently is not a
sufficient ground for reversal.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that
Miller’s obesity and hypertension were not “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” to reduce her sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. Nor did the district court err in finding that
the § 3553(a) sentencing factors militated against a sentence reduction
because: (1) the First Step Act’s § 924(c) amendment is not retroactive, see
United States v. Gomez, 960 F.3d 173, 177 (5th Cir. 2020); and (2) the
sentence imposed served the interest of justice and reflected the seriousness
of Miller’s offenses, see § 3553(a)(2)(A). And to the extent that Miller seeks
to attack her underlying sentence with evidence that her co-defendant
recanted inculpatory statements, the proper vehicle is a motion under 28
U.S.C. § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
3