United States v. Hatton ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30494 Document: 00515812377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-30494 April 7, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ray Hatton, III,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:12-CR-334-1
Before Ho, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ray Hatton III pleaded guilty to receipt of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). In 2013, he was sentenced to 121
months’ imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release. After exhausting
his administrative remedies, Hatton 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-30494 Document: 00515812377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2021
No. 20-30494
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act. The
district court denied Hatton’s motion. Hatton appealed.
His case was routed to this panel for consideration in tandem with No.
20-10695, United States v. Lorick, 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 Hatton 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 Hatton’s motion for
compassionate release is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2