Case: 21-40393 Document: 00516080158 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40393 November 3, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Steven Douglas Schad,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:17-CR-225-3
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Steven Douglas Schad, federal prisoner # 25511-479, appeals the
denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release.
Schad argues that the district court abused its discretion and erred in denying
his motion for compassionate release because the district court considered
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40393 Document: 00516080158 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2021
No. 21-40393
his medical condition and the threat posed by COVID-19, without also
considering the sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), before reaching the
conclusion that there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons for his
release. We review the district court’s denial of Schad’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d
691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion if it “bases its
decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court may reduce a prisoner’s
sentence if, after considering the applicable § 3553(a) factors, the court finds
that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and
“that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued
by the Sentencing Commission.” See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388,
392-93 (5th Cir. 2021). In this case, the district court only addressed the
defendant’s motion for compassionate release and never mentioned the
§ 3553(a) factors at any point in the proceedings. Because the district court
denied Schad’s motion without specifically considering the § 3553(a) factors,
it abused its discretion. See id. at 393; Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
The denial of Schad’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion is VACATED, and
the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
2