United States v. Alexander ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10658 Document: 00516654499 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10658
Summary Calendar FILED
February 23, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Craig Alexander,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CR-60-3
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Craig Alexander, federal prisoner # 10855-035, appeals the extent of
the sentence reduction the district court granted under section 404 of the
First Step Act of 2018. Alexander argues that the district court abused its
discretion and violated his right to due process by denying his motion without
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10658 Document: 00516654499 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/23/2023
No. 22-10658
giving him the opportunity to reply to the Government’s response regarding
his post-sentencing conduct.
We review a district court’s decision under section 404 of the First
Step Act for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Perez, 27 F.4th 1101,
1103 (5th Cir. 2022). Even assuming the district court abused its discretion
by denying Alexander the opportunity to respond, any error by the district
court was harmless because Alexander was already on notice that such
information might be presented to the court based on the Government’s
previous response to a prior 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion; because his
motion alluded to his prison disciplinary record, albeit by noting his lack of
any misconduct for the previous eight years; because of his lack of any new
misconduct since well before the Government’s previous response; because
the Government remarked favorably regarding this lack of recent
misconduct; and because his brief makes no argument as to how he was
harmed by the alleged error, beyond his unsupported assertion that the
violation of his due process rights alone constituted sufficient harm. See
United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2