United States v. Poff ( 2021 )

Case: 20-20490 Document: 00516035320 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 29, 2021
No. 20-20490 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Julia Ann Poff,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-669-1
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Julia Ann Poff pleaded guilty pursuant to a written agreement with the
Government to transporting an explosive with the intent that the explosive
be used to kill, injure, and intimidate, 18 U.S.C. § 844(d), based on her
mailing an improvised explosive device to President Barack Obama. The
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20490 Document: 00516035320 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2021
No. 20-20490
district court sentenced Poff to 120 months in prison, the statutory maximum
and effective guidelines range, to be followed by a three-year term of
supervised release. She appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for
compassionate release or for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial of her motion for reconsideration.
We review a district court’s decision denying a motion for
compassionate release and a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). A district
court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
While the district court discussed U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in its order, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt bound by this policy statement
and its commentary. Instead, the record shows that the district court’s denial
of relief was also based on its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See
United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 693. Poff’s arguments that amount to a disagreement with the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors do not suffice to show error. See
Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Poff otherwise fails to establish that the district
court’s denial of her motion was based on a legal error or a clearly erroneous
factual finding. See Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693;
Henderson, 636 F.3d at 717. Finally, Poff has not shown that the district court
abused its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider. See Rabhan, 540
F.3d at 346-47.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Poff’s motions to
expedite her appeal and for immediate release are DENIED. Poff’s motion
2
Case: 20-20490 Document: 00516035320 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2021
No. 20-20490
to seal medical records attached as an exhibit to the memorandum in support
of her motion to expedite her appeal is GRANTED. See S.E.C. v. Van
Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993).
3