Case: 20-20427 Document: 00516036769 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 30, 2021
No.20-20427
consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
No. 20-20452
Summary Calendar
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cheryl Reed Johnson,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:14-CR-47-1
USDC No. 4:14-CR-575-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cheryl Reed Johnson, federal prisoner # 61976-379, was convicted of
six fraud-related charges and was sentenced to serve a total of 151 months in
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20427 Document: 00516036769 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2021
No. 20-20427
c/w No. 20-20452
prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Now, she appeals the
district court’s denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
compassionate release, arguing that the district court erred by declining to
consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and that her BMI,
anemia, and asthma amount to extraordinary and compelling reasons
justifying relief.
This court reviews a district court’s decision denying compassionate
release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691,
693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision
is grounded in a legal error or clearly erroneous facts. Id. Johnson has not
met this standard.
Because the district court properly relied upon § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) in
conducting its analysis and did not treat U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, there
is no legal error. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392 (5th Cir.
2021); United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir. 2021), cert.
denied, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021) (No. 20-7832). Additionally,
because it concluded there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons
meriting relief, there was no need for it to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). The record shows no clear error in connection with its
findings that she had not established that she had conditions that put her at
enhanced risk for complications from COVID-19. Because Johnson has
shown no abuse of discretion in connection with the district court’s
judgment, that judgment is AFFIRMED.
2