Case: 20-10251 Document: 00515929894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 8, 2021
No. 20-10251 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jimmy Steele,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:08-CR-87-1
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
A jury found Jimmy Steele, federal prisoner # 36989-177, guilty of
possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance
containing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), possession
of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10251 Document: 00515929894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2021
No. 20-10251
U.S.C. § 924(c), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender to a total of
360 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. He
appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release or
for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial of
his motion for reconsideration.
We review a district court’s decision denying a motion for
compassionate release and a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020);
United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). A district
court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d
713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011).
While the district court discussed U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in its order, there
is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt bound by this policy statement
and its commentary. Instead, the record shows that the district court’s denial
of relief was also based on its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See
United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948
F.3d at 693. Steele’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the district
court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which does not suffice to show
error. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Furthermore, Steele has not shown
that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to
reconsider. See Rabhan, 540 F.3d at 346-47.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2