United States v. Baker

Case: 21-50859 Document: 00516580947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 16, 2022
No. 21-50859
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Tylar Baker,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-19
Before Graves, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Tylar Baker pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute five
grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to a term of 87
months’ confinement. After serving less than two thirds of his prison term,
Baker filed a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a) (“compassionate
release motion”) for a sentence reduction.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-50859 Document: 00516580947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2022
No. 21-50859
The court reviews a district court’s denial of a compassionate release
motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693
(5th Cir. 2020). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an
error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
After considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) and the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission, the district court denied the motion. Appellant argues that
because the district court considered “applicable policy statements issued by
the Sentencing Commission” when denying the compassionate release
motion, the decision runs afoul of the court’s holding in United States v.
Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). In Shkambi, the court held that
“neither the policy statement nor the commentary to it binds a district court
addressing a prisoner’s own motion under § 3582.” 993 F.3d at 393. Instead
“[t]he district court . . . is bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and, as always,
the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).” Id.
Here, the district court recognized Appellant’s filing as a
compassionate release motion, acknowledged the § 3553(a) factors, and used
its discretion to deny the motion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667,
673 (5th Cir. 2009). The “commentary to the [Sentencing Commission
guidelines] informs our analysis as to what reasons may be sufficiently
extraordinary and compelling to merit compassionate release.” United States
v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and
citations omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021). The district court is
permitted to consider policy statements and guidelines by the Sentencing
Commission when deciding a compassionate release motion. Id. Nothing in
the district court’s decision suggests that it treated any policy statement as
binding.
2
Case: 21-50859 Document: 00516580947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2022
No. 21-50859
The district court considered the § 3553(a) factors when denying the
compassionate release motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a). The
district court did not abuse its discretion by referencing the Sentencing
Commission policy statements. Accordingly, we AFFIRM. Appellant’s
motion to appoint counsel is DENIED.
3