United States v. Garner

Case: 21-30706 Document: 00516418277 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 3, 2022
No. 21-30706 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steve J. Garner,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
No. 3:90-CR-30017-1
Before Smith, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Steve Garner, federal prisoner #17799-001, appeals the denial of his
motion for a sentence reduction per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He contends
that he demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting com-
passionate release and that the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-30706 Document: 00516418277 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/03/2022
No. 21-30706
favor of a reduced sentence. Although Garner also claims that he received an
excessive sentence; he received ineffective assistance of counsel; he did not
receive a fair trial; the victim’s conduct was the cause of his criminal behav-
ior; and the conditions of his confinement violate the Eighth Amendment,
those theories were not properly raised in the district court, and we will not
consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Bower v. Quar-
terman, 497 F.3d 459, 475 (5th Cir. 2007).
We review the denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court
may modify a sentence, after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if
“extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.”
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
Despite Garner’s assertions to the contrary, the district court properly
considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors. The court explicitly addressed the
seriousness of Garner’s offense, his continued disregard for the law, his crim-
inal history and characteristics, the need to promote respect for the law, and
the need for specific and general deterrence. Because the court did not rely
on an impermissible sentencing factor and did not fail to consider a relevant
factor, it did not abuse its discretion in denying a reduction. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 693.
The order of denial is AFFIRMED. Garner’s motion for appoint-
ment of counsel is DENIED.
2