FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 18, 2021
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 20-1453
(D.C. No. 1:00-CR-00348-LTB-1)
SHAWN P. WILLIAMS, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before MORITZ, BALDOCK, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.**
_________________________________
Defendant-Appellant was convicted of seven counts of mailing threatening
communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7876. Before Defendant began serving the
78-month sentence imposed by the district court, Defendant filed a motion for
compassionate release. Defendant requested release based on being high-risk for
COVID related complications. The district court denied the motion. Although the
district court determined Defendant presented an extraordinary and compelling reason
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
for release, it concluded that the § 3553(a) factors do not support a sentence
modification. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This appeal followed. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
A district court may grant a motion for compassionate release when the court
finds: (1) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence reduction; (2) such
a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission; and (3) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support early release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th
Cir. 2021). If any one of these prerequisites is lacking, the district court may deny the
motion without addressing the other factors. Id. at 1043.
We review the district court’s decision to deny compassionate release for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 2021 WL 1148456, at * 2 (10th Cir.
Mar. 25, 2021) (unpublished). Under such standard, we will uphold the district court’s
ruling unless it relied on an incorrect conclusion of law or clearly erroneous finding of
fact. United States v. Pinson, 835 F. App’x 390, 394 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished).
Defendant has not pointed us to any error of law or fact in the district court’s order.
Defendant’s sole argument is that “[t]he district court unreasonably balanced the
§ 3553(a) factors in this particular case.” But it is not our role to “reweigh the factors
and come to a different conclusion than the district court,” and “disagreement with how
the district court balanced § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to establish an abuse of
discretion.” Williams, 2021 WL 1148456, at *3.
2
Because the district court did not rely on a faulty premise of law or a clearly
erroneous finding of fact, we discern no reversible error. Where the district court
accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Therefore,
exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for substantially the same
reasons set forth in the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for
compassionate release.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
3