United States v. Weeden ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60303 Document: 00516604004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60303 FILED
January 10, 2023
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Anthony Weeden,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CR-8-1
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Anthony Weeden, federal prisoner # 05749-043, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release. The district court
determined that his health conditions and risks from the COVID-19
pandemic did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-60303 Document: 00516604004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2023
No. 22-60303
warranting compassionate release and that, in any event, the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors did not support compassionate release.
We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. See
United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021). We need not reach
the issue of whether Weeden demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
circumstances under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as the district court’s
denial of relief based on the § 3553(a) factors constitutes an independent
basis for affirming. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th
Cir. 2020). Regarding § 3553(a), the district court noted Weeden’s criminal
history and prison disciplinary cases and determined that releasing him
would not be in the interests of justice and would minimize the seriousness
of his offense.
Weeden, who was born in 1958, notes his age and asserts, as he did in
the district court, that he has become much older since his last criminal
conduct, the convictions that placed him in criminal history category VI are
all over 20 years old, he has been continuously incarcerated since 2006, he is
in diminished health, and the private sector could better serve his medical
needs. Weeden has not shown that the district court abused its discretion
with respect to the § 3553(a) factors. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. He
does not dispute the substance of the criminal history or prison disciplinary
cases referenced by the district court. His disagreement with the district
court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors is not a sufficient ground for
reversal. See id. at 694.
AFFIRMED.
2