United States v. William McLean, Jr. ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40443 Document: 00516935493 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
_____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-40443 October 18, 2023
consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce
Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065 Clerk
_____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
William Samuel McLean, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC Nos. 4:93-CR-22-1, 4:93-CR-47-1
______________________________
Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
William Samuel McLean, Jr., federal prisoner # 04259-078, filed a
motion for compassionate release pursuant to the First Step Act of 2018, Pub.
L. No. 115-391, § 603(b)(1), 132 Stat. 5194 (2018), and 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He argued that his underlying medical conditions in
combination with the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic constituted
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40443 Document: 00516935493 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 22-40443
c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release. McLean
further argued that given the First Step Act’s elimination of sentence
stacking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the severity of the sentence he received
for his firearm offenses should be treated as an “extraordinary and
compelling” reason for a sentence reduction. The district court denied
McLean’s motion by order of March 18, 2022. The district court
reconsidered this denial but again denied McLean compassionate release by
order of June 27, 2022. McLean appealed this order.
McLean subsequently filed other motions to reconsider his motion for
compassionate release. On January 17, 2023, in a lengthy and comprehensive
order that recounted the full history of this litigation, the district court
granted McLean’s request for reconsideration and reconsidered his motion
for a sentence reduction. Following reconsideration, the district court again
denied McLean a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). McLean also
appealed this order.
Pending before the court are the consolidated appeals of both orders
of the district court granting McLean’s requests for reconsideration but
denying compassionate release. As a preliminary matter, we address our
jurisdiction to review McLean’s appeal of the district court’s June 27, 2022,
order granting reconsideration and denying compassionate release. This
court has an obligation to examine the basis of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte
if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “Whether
an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter, since it implicates the Article III
requirement that there be a live case or controversy.” United States v.
Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bailey v.
Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir. 1987)). This court reviews questions
of jurisdiction de novo. Veasey v. Abbott, 888 F.3d 792, 798 (5th Cir. 2018).
Here, McLean’s appeal of the district court’s June 27, 2022, order has been
rendered moot by the district court’s subsequent orders granting
2
Case: 22-40443 Document: 00516935493 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 22-40443
c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065
reconsideration of the compassionate release issue. Therefore, we
DISMISS appeal No. 22-40443 as moot.
We address McLean’s remaining appeals on their merits. A district
court may grant a prisoner compassionate release pursuant to
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.
2021). Movants must show three criteria to obtain relief: (1) “extraordinary
and compelling reasons” must justify a sentence reduction; (2) the reduction
must be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s policy statements;
and (3) early release must be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1089 (5th Cir.
2022) (quoting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). As the policy statement at U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 (p.s.) applies only to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions filed by the Bureau
of Prisons, the district court was bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and the
§ 3553(a) factors in this case. See Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393.
District courts may deny compassionate release if the § 3553(a)
factors weigh against it, and this court regularly affirms denials based solely
on a determination that the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors
“independently support[s] its judgment.” Jackson, 27 F.4th at 1093 n.8; see
Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020). In its order denying
compassionate release, the district court articulated several reasons under
§ 3553(a) for denying compassionate release. On appeal, McLean disagrees
with the district court’s conclusions, but he has not shown that the
conclusions were based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment
of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Because the district court
was “in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under
§ 3553(a) in the individual case,” we will defer to the district court’s
balancing of those factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693 (quoting Gall v. United
3
Case: 22-40443 Document: 00516935493 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 22-40443
c/w Nos. 23-40064, 23-40065
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). McLean’s contention that the district court
abused its discretion in denying him compassionate release is unavailing.
For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS appeal No. 22-40443 as
moot, and we AFFIRM the district court’s holdings in appeal Nos. 23-
40064 and 23-40065.
4