United States v. Bell ( 2023 )

Case: 21-51062 Document: 00516966710 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 14, 2023
No. 21-51062 Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joshua Bell,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:09-CR-179-1
______________________________
Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Joshua Bell appealed the district court’s order entered October 11,
2021, denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Bell contended that the district court erred by failing to
provide a sufficiently detailed explanation for denying his motion.
Upon initial consideration of Bell’s appeal, we agreed and remanded
for the limited purpose of having the district court clarify its reasons for
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-51062 Document: 00516966710 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2023
No. 21-51062
denying Bell’s motion. United States v. Bell, No. 21-51062, 2023 WL 4836667(5th Cir. July 27, 2023) (per curiam). We reasoned that we had remanded
similar cases where the district court had “articulated its reasoning for
denying a motion for compassionate release via a perfunctory sentence
referencing the parties’ filings, the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, and the
Sentencing Commission’s policy statements.” Id. at *2.
Bell’s underlying motion seeks a reduction of his sentence to “time
served, or in the alternative, . . . to a term the Court deems appropriate.” In
its order issued on remand, the district court expanded on its reasons for
denying the motion, emphasizing the serious nature of Bell’s crime,
including Bell’s detailed planning of the robbery and the fact that a guard
“suffered multiple gunshot wounds . . . causing permanent damage to his left
foot and the right side of his chest.” Furthermore, the district court found
that “Bell has been far from the model prisoner” since his sentencing. It
noted that Bell “had been sanctioned eleven times while serving his sentence:
three times for assault, three times for fighting another person, three times
for possessing a dangerous weapon, once for being in an unauthorized area,
and once for tattooing or self-mutilation.” Finally, the district court found
that Bell was healthy and “raise[d] no physical or medical condition for the
Court to consider.”
Applying the § 3553(a) factors to those facts, the district court
determined that a reduction of Bell’s sentence “would not reflect the
seriousness of his offense, would not promote respect for the law, would not
provide just punishment for the offense, would not adequately deter criminal
conduct, and would not protect the public from further crimes.” See
§ 3553(a)(1)–(2).
We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate
release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433
2
Case: 21-51062 Document: 00516966710 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/14/2023
No. 21-51062
(5th Cir. 2021). “[A] prisoner seeking compassionate release must overcome
three hurdles.” United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1089 (5th Cir. 2022).
“First, ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ must justify the reduction of
his sentence.” Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)).1 “Second, the reduction
must be ‘consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission.’” Id. (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)). And third, “the
prisoner must persuade the district court that his early release would be
consistent with the sentencing factors in . . . § 3553(a).” Id. “The district
court has discretion to deny compassionate release if the Section 3553(a)
factors counsel against a reduction.” Id. (quoting Ward v. United States, 11
F.4th 354, 360 (5th Cir. 2021)).
Assuming arguendo Bell clears the first two hurdles, he fails to clear
the third.2 The district court considered the specific facts of Bell’s crimes
and his behavior while in prison and determined that the § 3553(a) factors
counseled against a reduction in Bell’s sentence. Based on those findings,
Bell has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020)
(noting that “we give deference to the district court’s decision” because it
_____________________
1
Bell contends the district court erred by finding that the policy statements and
commentary in United States Sentencing Guideline § 1B1.13 were binding as to what
constitutes “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release. The district court made
no such finding in its original order or its order on remand. Moreover, though Bell is correct
that § 1B1.13 “does not bind a district court when considering a prisoner’s motion for
compassionate release[,] . . . [it] may inform the district court’s analysis.” Jackson, 27
F.4th at 1090 (cleaned up).
2
The district court did not expressly discuss whether extraordinary and compelling
reasons justified Bell’s release or whether a reduction would be consistent with applicable
policy statements. But it did note Bell’s young age and overall good health in denying the
motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 cmt. n.1 (suggesting that extraordinary and compelling
reasons for release exist if the prisoner is suffering from a serious medical condition or based
on his advanced age).
3
Case: 21-51062 Document: 00516966710 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/14/2023
No. 21-51062
“is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a)
in the individual case”).
AFFIRMED.
4