United States v. Williams ( 2021 )

Case: 19-10504 Document: 00515827312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 19, 2021
No. 19-10504 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Williams,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-287
Before Jones, Haynes, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Williams appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-
391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194. Initially, the district court concluded that Williams
was ineligible for resentencing. Williams appealed, correctly arguing that he
is eligible for resentencing. “‘That [Williams] is eligible for resentencing
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-10504 Document: 00515827312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 19-10504
does not mean he is entitled to it,’ however.” United States v. Jackson, 945
F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Beamus, 943 F.3d 789,
792 (6th Cir. 2019)). District courts have “broad discretion” in determining
whether or not to grant a sentence reduction under the First Step Act. Id.On remand, after weighing the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district
court declined to exercise that discretion and denied Williams’s motion.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for a sentence
reduction under the First Step Act for abuse of discretion. See id. at 319. “A
district 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.
Quintanilla, 868 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 2017) (quotation omitted). Williams
has not shown that the district court based its decision on an error of law.
Nor has he shown that the district court relied on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence. In fact, Williams admits to many of the
disciplinary infractions that the district court relied on when denying his
motion. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
2