United States v. Dobbs ( 2021 )

Case: 20-40536 Document: 00515900766 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 15, 2021
No. 20-40536
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Danny O’Neill Dobbs,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:19-CR-408-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Danny O’Neill Dobbs, federal prisoner #
84078-479, is serving a 30-month term of imprisonment for importing
Oxycodone into the United States. He appeals the district court’s denial of
his second motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-40536 Document: 00515900766 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2021
No. 20-40536
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Dobbs argues that he should be released because COVID-
19 is spreading at the facility where he is incarcerated, and his age (53) and
health conditions put him at an increased risk of serious illness or death if he
were to contract the virus.
The district court noted that Dobbs’s arguments mirrored those in his
first motion for compassionate release, the denial of which it had vacated
because of a potential jurisdictional issue. It denied Dobbs’s second motion
for the same reasons that it had denied his first motion. We review the
district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020).
Dobbs contends that the district court failed to consider all of his
contentions and misunderstood its authority to reduce his sentence to time
served and satisfies supervised release with an order of home confinement.
The district court’s discussion of the facts specific to Dobbs’s case and its
reasons for denying release, however, demonstrate that it considered
Dobbs’s arguments and had “a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal
decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007).
Having determined that a sentence reduction was not warranted, the
sentencing court had no reason to address whether home confinement would
have satisfied supervised release.
Dobbs also claims that the district court misunderstood the breadth of
its authority under § 3582(c)(1)(A) to determine whether he had established
extraordinary and compelling reasons that warranted release. We need not
resolve that issue; the district court also denied Dobbs release as unwarranted
in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Dobbs might disagree with the way
that the district court balanced those factors, but his disagreement does not
provide a sufficient ground for reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2