United States v. Fisher ( 2021 )

Case: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 10, 2021
No. 21-40004
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jay Alan Fisher,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:15-CR-853-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jay Alan Fisher, federal prisoner # 91672-379, pled guilty to coercion
and enticement of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). He was
sentenced in 2016 to 120 months of imprisonment and 15 years of supervised
release. Fisher now challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40004 Document: 00516088745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2021
No. 21-40004
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the
district court’s determination that there were no “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” warranting a reduction was based on a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court concluded that
Fisher was not entitled to an early release because his medical conditions,
coupled with his fear of being re-infected with COVID-19, did not constitute
an extraordinary or compelling circumstance. The district court also
expressly found that the severity of his offense — a relevant factor for
consideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — weighed against his early release.
Fisher acknowledges the severity of his offense but argues that the
district court did not consider whether the severity of the offense outweighed
his extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. He fails to show,
though, that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the factors
that he raised in support of his motion. See Cooper, 996 F.3d at 286.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2