United States v. Gatewood ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50670 Document: 00516691114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50670
Summary Calendar FILED
March 28, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robin M. Gatewood,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-138-1
Before Jones, Stewart, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robin Gatewood, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. On appeal,
Gatewood argues that the district court failed to adequately explain its
decision denying his motion for a sentence reduction.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50670 Document: 00516691114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2023
No. 22-50670
We review a district court’s order denying compassionate release for
an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). A district court may only modify a defendant’s sentence if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In addition to that determination, the district
court must consider the applicable factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
provide specific reasons for its decision. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
However, the amount of explanation needed depends “upon the
circumstances of the particular case.” Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.
Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). As the Supreme Court has guided, “it may be
sufficient,” in some instances, “that the judge simply relied upon the record,
while making clear that” the judge also “considered the parties’ arguments
and [has] taken account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
We disagree with Gatewood that the district court abused its
discretion here. Rather, the record reflects that the district court gave due
consideration to the motion for compassionate release. Indeed, as reflected
in its order, the district court reviewed Gatewood’s motion, the
Government’s response, and Gatewood’s reply—each of which pressed
arguments regarding the § 3553(a) factors. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at
1965. The district court also explicitly stated that it separately considered the
§ 3553(a) factors and the applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission. After review of these relevant arguments, the court
concluded relief was not warranted. On this record then, we conclude there
is no basis for a determination that the district court abused its discretion.
See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2