United States v. Tyler ( 2023 )

Case: 20-51011 Document: 00516942979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 24, 2023
No. 20-51011 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steve Maurice Tyler,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-128-5
______________________________
Before Jones, Stewart, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Appellant Steve Tyler pled guilty in 2016 to conspiracy to possess
280 grams or more of cocaine base with intent to distribute. The district
court (Junell, J.) sentenced him to a statutory minimum 240-months of
imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2010). We affirmed in part and
_____________________
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set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: 20-51011 Document: 00516942979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2023
No. 20-51011
remanded in part. Having received the district court’s more complete
explanation of its order, we now AFFIRM.
Tyler moved for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The government filed a response, and the district court
(Counts, J.) denied the motion as follows: “After considering the applicable
factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the applicable policy statements
issued by the Sentencing Commission, the Court DENIES the Defendant’s
Motions [sic] on its merits.” Tyler then filed a timely motion for
reconsideration, which the court likewise denied.
Tyler now appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release.
We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021).
Tyler argues that the district court erred in failing to assess whether
his allegations established “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
warranting a reduction in his sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He
also asserts that the district court erroneously considered U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
to be binding. These contentions lack merit, as the district court’s
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors furnished an independent and adequate
basis for denying Tyler’s motion. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184,
188 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022).
Tyler additionally argues that the district court erred by perfunctorily
denying his motion. Our remand to the district court cured the procedural
deficiency. The district court noted overwhelming reasons as to why the
§ 3553(a) factors do not support a reduced prison term, based on Tyler’s
repeated and longstanding drug trafficking, even while on supervised release.
And the court found that the Section 3553(a) factors do not support early
release based on defendant’s criminal history. This explanation was
sufficient.
2
Case: 20-51011 Document: 00516942979 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2023
No. 20-51011
This court’s order denying early release is AFFIRMED.
3