Case: 20-60645 Document: 00515875239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 25, 2021
No. 20-60645 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jimmie Terrell Harrison,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-98-1
Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jimmie Terrell Harrison, federal prisoner # 20912-043, pleaded guilty
to possession, with intent to distribute, more than 50 grams of
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced
to, inter alia, 240-months’ imprisonment, a term below the advisory
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60645 Document: 00515875239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2021
No. 20-60645
Sentencing Guidelines range. Harrison, proceeding pro se, challenges the
district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction (seeking
compassionate release) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), asserting the
court failed to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. (To
the extent Harrison claims he is being subjected to a cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that COVID-19 has
stopped all programming, vocational training, other needed treatment, and
employment within the prison, we need not reach these claims, because the
court properly disposed of the sentence-reduction motion after considering
the § 3553(a) factors.)
A district court’s denying a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020). A district court may reduce a defendant’s sentence, after considering
the applicable § 3553(a) factors, if “extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant such a reduction”. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Despite Harrison’s assertions to the contrary, the court properly
considered the applicable § 3553(a) factors. It explicitly considered: the
seriousness of Harrison’s offense; his criminal history, including a prior
felony conviction for the sale of a controlled substance; the need to promote
respect for the law; the need to provide just punishment; and the need for
specific and general deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2). Moreover,
the court noted: Harrison received a below-Guidelines sentence; he had
served less than ten percent of his sentence; and he was in possession of a
dangerous firearm at the time of his arrest. Because the court did not rely on
an impermissible, or fail to consider a relevant, sentencing factor, it did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 51 (2007); United States v. Jones, 980 F.3d 1098, 1114 (6th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.
2