United States v. Guillory ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30591 Document: 00516755093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
May 18, 2023
No. 22-30591
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Quincy O. Guillory,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:02-CR-20062-1
______________________________
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Quincy O. Guillory, federal prisoner # 11380-035, appeals the denial
of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On
appeal, Guillory contends that the district court erred in finding that he failed
to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting relief. He
additionally argues that the district court failed to acknowledge his exhibits
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30591 Document: 00516755093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2023
No. 22-30591
or adequately consider or discuss his arguments regarding the applicability of
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that he contended weighed in favor of
compassionate release.
We review the denial of Guillory’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). In this case, while the district court’s analysis was fairly curt on
the point, the court adequately considered Guillory’s arguments and
concluded that consideration of the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor
of relief. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United
States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that Guillory
disagrees with the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, his
disagreement does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
We need not consider Guillory’s contention that the district court
erred in finding that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors.
See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2