United States v. Slaughter ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10105 Document: 00516836509 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10105
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ July 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Slaughter,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CR-10-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
James Slaughter, federal prisoner # 32675-077, appeals the denial of
his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
judgment of the district court granting him relief under section 404 of the
First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194,
5222. We review for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Batiste, 980
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10105 Document: 00516836509 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2023
No. 23-10105
F.3d 466, 469 (5th Cir. 2020); Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567,
570 (5th Cir. 2019).
The district court was not permitted to consider Slaughter’s
challenges to his U.S.S.G. § 2D1.2(a)(1) enhancement and the court’s prior
drug-quantity determination; these arguments, which are not premised upon
section 404 or post-sentencing changes to applicable laws or facts, were
matters for the original sentencing. See United States v. Hegwood, 934 F.3d
414, 418-19 (5th Cir. 2019), abrogated on other grounds by Concepcion v. United
States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022); cf. United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th
184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023) (compassionate release case holding that a prisoner
cannot use 18 U.S.C. § 3582 to challenge the legality or duration of sentence);
United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 674 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that
arguments for direct appeal are not cognizable in § 3582(c) motions).
Although Slaughter argues that the sentences imposed by the district court
in granting him FSA § 404 relief are substantively unreasonable, his
argument is foreclosed. See Batiste, 980 F.3d at 479-80.
Finally, Slaughter does not identify any authority requiring the district
court to state findings and conclusions in denying his Rule 59(e) motion. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Moreover, the district court stated that it had
considered Slaughter’s Rule 59(e) arguments, and it implicitly denied the
motion for the reasons set forth in its previous order granting FSA § 404
relief, to wit: its consideration of the § 3553(a) factors, public safety, and
Slaughter’s post-sentencing conduct; no more was required. See Concepcion
v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); Batiste, 980 F.3d at 478-79.
AFFIRMED.
2