Case: 21-60111 Document: 00516052862 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/13/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 13, 2021
No. 21-60111
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Charles Schindler,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:19-CR-1-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Charles Schindler, federal prisoner # 22263-017, pled guilty to one
count of wire fraud, and the district court imposed a sentence of seventy-two
months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Schindler
now challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60111 Document: 00516052862 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/13/2021
No. 21-60111
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step
Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194.
The district court concluded that Schindler was not entitled to early
release because his medical conditions did not create an extraordinary or
compelling circumstance, and implicitly concluded that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors did not weigh in his favor. See United States v. Larry, 632
F.3d 933, 936 (5th Cir. 2011). Schindler contests those conclusions on
appeal, contending that he is entitled to compassionate release under
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) due to the extraordinary and compelling circumstances
COVID-19 poses in a prison setting, particularly in the light of his history of
chronic asthma. Schindler has also filed motions to appoint counsel, to
expedite the appeal, and for an extension of time to file his brief.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 692–93 (5th Cir. 2020). Here, Schindler has not
demonstrated that the district court based its decision on a legal error or on
an erroneous assessment of the evidence, or that it failed to consider a factor
required by law. See id. at 693; see also United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d
431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021) (Mem.).
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Schindler’s motions to
appoint counsel and to expedite the appeal are DENIED. His motion for an
extension of time to file his brief is DENIED AS MOOT.
2
United States v. Schindler
Combined Opinion