United States v. Lorick ( 2021 )

Case: 20-10695 Document: 00515812345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 7, 2021
No. 20-10695
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Jamaine Lorick,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:18-CR-57-1
Before Ho, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Jamaine Lorick pleaded guilty to possession with intent
to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii). In 2018, he was sentenced to 121 months’
imprisonment and five years of supervised release. After exhausting his
administrative remedies, Lorick filed a motion for compassionate release
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10695 Document: 00515812345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
No. 20-10695
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act. The
district court denied Lorick’s motion, and it later denied reconsideration.
Lorick appealed.
His case was routed to this panel for consideration in tandem with No.
20-30494, United States v. Hatton, and No. 20-40543, United States v.
Shkambi. Here, as in those other cases, the district court thought itself bound
by the United States Sentencing Commission’s “policy statement,” which
sets forth substantive standards governing compassionate-release motions
under § 3582(c)(1)(A). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 & cmt. 1.
As we explained in Shkambi, the text of § 1B1.13 limits its applicability
to “motion[s] of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.” No. 20-40543, at 8–
9 (5th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13). The district court
therefore erred in considering itself bound by the policy statement in
considering a prisoner’s § 3582 motion. On remand, the district court must
consider whether Lorick has demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” justifying sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Of course,
as always, the district court also must consider the factors enumerated in
§ 3553(a).
The district court’s order denying Lorick’s motion for compassionate
release is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2