Case: 20-10965 Document: 00515787735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 19, 2021
No. 20-10965
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jessie Alan Huckel,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-988
USDC No. 4:17-CR-176-3
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jessie Alan Huckel, federal prisoner # 56008-177, pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, and the district court imposed a sentence of 200 months
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10965 Document: 00515787735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/19/2021
No. 20-10965
in prison to be followed by four years of supervised release. In the district
court, Huckel filed a letter that urged the reasons why he believed that he
qualified for compassionate release and also requested appointment of
counsel. The district court construed the letter filing as a motion for
compassionate release and denied it. On appeal, Huckel contends that the
district court erred in construing his letter as a motion for compassionate
release. He also challenges the district court’s denial of his constructive
motion, arguing that he is entitled to compassionate release due to the
extraordinary and compelling circumstances COVID-19 poses in a prison
setting, particularly in light of various preexisting ailments from which he
suffers.
As a preliminary matter, Huckel has not shown any error in the district
court’s construction of his letter as a motion for compassionate release.
Although in a single sentence Huckel asked to be appointed counsel, his letter
was otherwise wholly devoted to presenting the reasons why he believed he
was entitled to compassionate release, including that his preexisting ailments
put him at an increased risk for serious illness from COVID-19, that his family
would support him upon release, and that he had made efforts at
rehabilitation while in prison and had exhausted his administrative remedies.
Additionally, he attached to his letter 38 pages of documentation to support
his claim. Because his letter contained arguments as to why he should be
granted compassionate release and was devoid of any arguments as to why he
was entitled to appointment of counsel, the district court reasonably
construed Huckel’s letter as a motion for compassionate release. To the
extent that Huckel challenges the district court’s implicit denial of his
request for the appointment of counsel, he has not shown that the court
abused its discretion in that regard. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th
Cir. 1987).
2
Case: 20-10965 Document: 00515787735 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/19/2021
No. 20-10965
As to Huckel’s challenge to the denial of his constructive motion for
compassionate release, a district court may reduce a defendant’s term of
imprisonment if, after considering the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
the court finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction” and “such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). A district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and
deference is given to the district court’s application of the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020).
Here, although the district court initially found that extraordinary and
compelling reasons did not exist, it alternatively denied Huckel’s motion on
the ground that he was not entitled to compassionate release because the
§ 3553(a) factors did not weigh in his favor. Specifically, the district court
found that: Huckel had committed a serious offense; he had a “fairly lengthy
criminal history”; denial of the motion was necessary to protect the public
from future crimes; and releasing Huckel was not in the interests of justice
and would minimize the seriousness of his offense. See § 3553(a)(1)-(2).
While Huckel makes conclusional statements that the § 3553(a) factors favor
his early release and that the district court failed to consider the § 3553(a)
factors, he fails to articulate which factors the district court neglected to
consider. Huckel’s disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the
sentencing factors is not sufficient to demonstrate an abuse of discretion,
particularly given that Huckel provides no evidence or case law establishing
that the district court based its decision on a legal error or on an erroneous
assessment of the facts. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
Because we can affirm on any basis supported by the record, see United
States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014), we need not address the
3
Case: 20-10965 Document: 00515787735 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/19/2021
No. 20-10965
district court’s alternative reason for denial, namely that denial of the motion
was warranted because Huckel posed a danger to other persons or the
community, as contemplated by the Sentencing Commission’s policy
statement at U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
4