United States v. Deem ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30493 Document: 00516304207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 3, 2022
No. 21-30493 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steven Deem,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:13-CR-149-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Steven Deem, federal prisoner # 16418-035, appeals the denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. The district
court denied relief based upon its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30493 Document: 00516304207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2022
No. 21-30493
factors, and we review that denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
Although Deem argues that the district court failed to consider his
post-sentencing conduct and minimal likelihood of recidivism as reflected in
two risk assessments, we do not consider the second assessment since it was
not before the district court. See Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491
n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). The order denying compassionate release indicates that
the district court sufficiently considered the first risk assessment, but the
court nevertheless concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief
in light of, inter alia, Deem’s criminal history as a child-sex offender and the
fact that he had served less than half of his 20-year sentence for an offense
that carried a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018); § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C); 18
U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). Deem’s disagreement with the district court’s
§ 3553(a) analysis is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 694. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by
denying relief. See id. at 693.
Deem’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED,
his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the order of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
2