Case: 20-60498 Document: 00515583161 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 29, 2020
No. 20-60498 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Ray Anthony Chaney, also known as Ray Anthony Bradley,
also known as Ray Chaney, also known as Ray A. Chaney, also known
as Ray N. Bradley,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:07-CR-12-1
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ray Anthony Chaney, federal prisoner # 08305-043, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for a compassionate release reduction of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). In that motion, Chaney
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60498 Document: 00515583161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 20-60498
argued that he should be released because Covid-19 was spreading at the
Oakdale I Federal Correctional Institution where he is incarcerated and his
age and health conditions, including Type II diabetes, put him at an increased
risk of serious illness or death if he were to contract the virus.
On appeal, Chaney argues that the district court abused its discretion
in determining that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting
a sentence reduction. 1 He contends that those factors supported his request
for a sentence reduction because he is an older, non-violent inmate, has
completed numerous self-improvement courses since he had been in prison,
has had no prison disciplinary infractions, and has a reentry plan. In denying
Chaney’s motion, the district court considered those facts but determined
that Chaney’s lengthy criminal history and other sentencing concerns
militated against granting relief. Having reviewed the district court’s reasons
for denying Chaney’s motion to reduce his sentence, we find no abuse of
discretion. The district court did not base its decision on an error of law or a
clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. See United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Chaney’s disagreement with how the
district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors does not present a sufficient
ground for reversal. See id. at 694.
Nor has Chaney shown a ground for reversal based on the district
court’s determination that it lacked the authority to order that he serve the
remainder of his sentence of imprisonment under home confinement. The
Bureau of Prisons has the sole authority to designate a prisoner’s place of
incarceration. 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); United States v. Voda, 994 F.2d 149, 151-
1
The district court implicitly recognized that Chaney had established
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for his release based on his risk of complications
from Covid-19, and the Government does not contest that point. Thus, that issue is not
before the court.
2
Case: 20-60498 Document: 00515583161 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2020
No. 20-60498
52 (5th Cir. 1993). Chaney’s assertion that the district court could have
achieved a similar remedy by reducing his sentence of imprisonment to time
served and ordering home confinement as a condition of probation or
supervised release has no bearing on his appeal because the district court
determined that a reduction of sentence was not warranted.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
3