United States v. Holder ( 2023 )

Case: 23-30278 Document: 00516983406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
November 29, 2023
No. 23-30278
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jeffrey Scott Holder,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:18-CR-332-3
______________________________
Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jeffrey Scott Holder, federal prisoner # 20875-035, appeals the denial
of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Holder argues that the district court abused its discretion in determining that
the facts of his case did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
warranting relief. He further contends that his postsentencing rehabilitation
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30278 Document: 00516983406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2023
No. 23-30278
weighed in favor of a sentencing reduction under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors.
The record reflects that the district court considered Holder’s
arguments when concluding that compassionate release was not warranted
based on extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See Concepcion v.
United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022). Before this court, Holder fails
to identify any medical conditions and, although he contends that he suffers
from an anxiety disorder, he makes no assertion that his ability to care for
himself while incarcerated is substantially impaired. See United States v.
Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-34 (5th Cir. 2021). Further, the district court
properly considered Holder’s prior recovery from COVID-19 and
vaccination status when determining that extraordinary and compelling
circumstances did not exist. See United States v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097,
1099-1101 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2022). Lastly, the district court was not required
to grant Holder’s motion on account of his rehabilitation efforts and, he fails
to offer any evidence demonstrating that there is no other family member
available to assist in caring for his daughter. See Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at
2404-05; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., comment. (n.3).
Holder has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion
in denying his motion for compassionate release on the basis that
extraordinary and compelling reasons did not warrant relief. See United
States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Similarly, Holder fails
to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. His argument that his
rehabilitation efforts weighed in favor of a reduction amounts to a mere
disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. See
id. at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2