United States v. Gaharan ( 2023 )

Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-30364 September 21, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
James Gaharan,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:19-CR-136-1
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
James Gaharan, federal prisoner # 21078-035, appeals the denials of
his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and his motion for reconsideration. We review each of
those denials for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-30364
F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567, 570
(5th Cir. 2019).
The district court denied Gaharan compassionate release because,
inter alia, it determined that reducing his 97-month sentence for possession
of child pornography would neither adequately deter him from criminal
conduct nor reflect the seriousness of his offense. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). Although Gaharan relies on United States v. Sauseda,
No. 21-50210, 2022 WL 989371 (5th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022), to support his
contention that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation
for denying him compassionate release, Sauseda is readily distinguishable; in
that case, unlike this one, the judge who denied the § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion
was not the same judge who sentenced the movant, the Government had not
filed any response to the motion, and the district court did not cite any
specific § 3553(a) factors in support of its denial order. Sauseda, 2022 WL
989371, 1-3. The district court in the instant case, which denied relief after
summarizing relevant parts of the record and making clear that it had
considered the parties’ arguments, was not required to provide a more
thorough explanation. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,
1965 (2018) (“In some cases, it may be sufficient for purposes of appellate
review that the judge simply relied upon the record, while making clear that
he or she has considered the parties’ arguments and taken account of the
§ 3553(a) factors.”).
Contrary to Gaharan’s contentions, the Government expressly argued
that his sexual abuse of his minor student supported the denial of
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief based upon the § 3553(a) factors. In any event, any
Government failure to address those factors would not have precluded the
district from considering them. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-
62 (5th Cir. 2021).
2
Case: 22-30364 Document: 00516903462 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/21/2023
No. 22-30364
Gaharan raised in his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) pleadings his instant
arguments that he is unlikely to recidivate in light of his post-sentencing
conduct and his PATTERN score; the district court, which indicated that it
had considered his pleadings, was not required to accept his arguments or
provide a point-by-point rebuttal of them. See Concepcion v. United States,
142 S. Ct. 2389, 2404-05 (2022). Although Gaharan contends that his is a
non-contact offense and, therefore, not sufficiently serious to warrant the
denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, his assertion is belied by
unchallenged facts contained in the presentence report and his receipt,
without objection, of an offense-level increase for engaging in a pattern of
activity involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of a minor student. See
U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5).
In short, Gaharan’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of
the § 3553(a) factors does not establish that the district court abused its
discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694; Trevino, 944 F.3d at 570. We
need not consider his contention that the district court erred in finding that
he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See
Ward, 11 F.4th at 360-62.
AFFIRMED.
3