Case: 20-10897 Document: 00515934355 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
for the Fifth Circuit July 12, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
No. 20-10897
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Blaine Faulkner,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:09-CR-249-2
Before Jolly, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Blaine Faulkner, federal prisoner # 03829-078, appeals the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.
He contends that the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s.,
in denying his motion because § 1B1.13 does not apply to § 3582(c)(1)(A)
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-10897 Document: 00515934355 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/12/2021
No. 20-10897
motions brought by prisoners. We do not consider Faulkner’s claim, raised
for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by declining to grant
him a transfer to home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339,
342 (5th Cir. 1999).
We review the district court’s denial of Faulkner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d
691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Faulkner must show that the district court “base[d]
its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Following the denial of Faulkner’s motion, we held that a district
court is not bound by § 1B1.13 in considering a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion
brought by a prisoner. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-93
(5th Cir. 2021). Because the district court treated § 1B1.13 as binding and
dispositive, it abused its discretion. See id. at 393; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
The denial of Faulkner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is VACATED, and
the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
2