United States v. Coats ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10419 Document: 00515892837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 9, 2021
No. 20-10419 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Garmon Coats,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:93-CR-128-1
Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Garmon Coats filed a motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (“Motion”), which the district court denied. We
AFFIRM.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10419 Document: 00515892837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-10419
I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 1994, a jury convicted Coats of one count of bank robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d), three counts of obstructing commerce by
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and three counts of using and
carrying a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c). Coats received a total sentence of 802 months.
In April 2020, after exhausting his administrative remedies, Coats
filed the Motion pro se, arguing that extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant a sentence reduction or commutation of his sentence for two reasons.
First, because the First Step Act altered (albeit non-retroactively) how
§ 924(c) sentences are consecutively stacked, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 403, 132
Stat. 5194, 5221–22 (2018), Coats asserted that his prison sentence would
have been reduced by 30 years had he been sentenced under the Act. 1
Second, relying on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Coats
contended that his 262-month prison term for the bank robbery conviction
was predicated on factual findings that were improperly made by the district
court.
The district court denied the Motion, reasoning that Coats had not
presented extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction as described
in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. It added that even “[i]f the court is mistaken and
movant has spelled out extraordinary and compelling reasons for his early
release, the court still would not reduce his sentence” because the factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) weigh against granting relief.
Coats timely appealed.
1
More specifically, instead of the 540-month mandatory sentence he received for
the three § 924(c) convictions, he would have received a 180-month sentence.
2
Case: 20-10419 Document: 00515892837 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-10419
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021).
III. DISCUSSION
“Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may reduce the
defendant’s term of imprisonment, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, if the court finds that (1) ‘extraordinary and compelling
reasons warrant such a reduction’ and (2) ‘a reduction is consistent with
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.’” United
States v. Okpalobi, 831 F. App’x 715, 715 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). This court has previously considered § 1B1.13 an
applicable policy statement when the prisoner, rather than the Bureau of
Prisons, moves for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See, e.g., id.; United States
v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
In United States v. Shkambi, this court joined our sister circuits in
holding that § 1B1.13 does not actually apply to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions
brought by the inmate. See 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). And in United
States v. Cooper, the court remanded a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion
in light of Shkambi so that “the district court [could] consider, in the first
instance, whether the nonretroactive sentencing changes to [the
defendant’s] § 924(c) convictions, either alone or in conjunction with any
other applicable considerations, constitute extraordinary and compelling
reasons for a reduction in sentence.” 996 F.3d 283, 289 (5th Cir. 2021). At
first glance it might appear that we should remand this case as the court did
in Cooper since the district court there, like here, incorrectly found itself
bound by § 1B1.13 when considering whether the First Step Act’s non-
retroactive modifications to § 924(c) constitute an extraordinary and
3
Case: 20-10419 Document: 00515892837 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-10419
compelling reason justifying a shortened sentence. See id. at 288. 2 But
remand in Cooper was proper since it was not “a case where, notwithstanding
the existence of extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court
nonetheless determined that § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors militate against a
sentence reduction.” See id. As noted, this is such a situation.
Thus, even assuming the post-sentencing legal developments on
which Coats relies could be considered as extraordinary and compelling
reasons for a sentence reduction, we must affirm the district court’s denial of
the Motion unless the lower court “base[d] its decision on an error of law or
clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” when applying and balancing
the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (citation
omitted). Coats’s “disagree[ment] with how the district court balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors . . . is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” See id. at 694.
Nor would be ours. See United States v. Nguyen, 854 F.3d 276, 283 (5th Cir.
2017).
The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and sufficiently
articulated reasons for denying the Motion, in particular the seriousness of
Coats’s offenses and the need to protect the public. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d
at 693–94. Specifically, the district court noted that Coats (1) was tried by a
jury and convicted on seven counts related to four robberies; (2) “threatened
to blow [a victim’s] brains out” with a gun during one robbery; (3) shoved a
“big bore automatic pistol” in another victim’s face during a second robbery;
(4) did not accept responsibility for his crimes and attempted to flee from
custody after the verdict was read; (5) oversaw the criminal activity at issue;
and (6) participated in other serious offenses, including aggravated robbery
2
The same could perhaps be said for Coats’s reliance on Apprendi since this court
has not previously ruled on whether the change in law espoused by that case may be
considered an extraordinary and compelling reason for a sentence reduction.
4
Case: 20-10419 Document: 00515892837 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/09/2021
No. 20-10419
and aggravated kidnapping. We discern no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s determination that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against a sentence
reduction. See id. Given this, the district court did not err in denying the
Motion.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
5