United States v. Steele ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10675 Document: 00516952380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10675
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ November 1, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jimmy Steele,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:08-CR-87-1
______________________________
Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jimmy Steele, federal prisoner #36989-177, appeals the denial of his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and
the denial of his motion for reconsideration. He argues that the district court
abused its discretion by failing to consider the factors Steele argued weighed
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10675 Document: 00516952380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-10675
in favor of a sentence reduction and failing to adequately explain its reason
for denying Steele’s motion.
We review each denial for 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). The district court’s order demonstrates
that it considered and rejected Steele’s arguments. See Concepcion v. United
States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184,
188 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009).
The district court’s order states that it considered the motion, the record,
and applicable authorities and concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
did not weigh in favor of relief. Steele “may disagree with how the district
court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, [but] that is not a sufficient ground for
reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that
relief was unwarranted under § 3553(a), we need not consider Steele’s
argument that the district court erred in finding that he failed to show
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v.
Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
Further, Steele has not shown that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion for reconsideration. See Rabhan, 540 F.3d at
346–47.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2