Case: 21-60441 Document: 00516103457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 22, 2021
No. 21-60441
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Louis Normand,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:20-CR-73-1
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Proceeding pro se, Louis Normand, federal prisoner # 22091-043,
challenges the denial of his motion for compassionate release under the First
Step Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He contends the district court
erred in concluding he failed to: properly exhaust his administrative
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60441 Document: 00516103457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-60441
remedies; and demonstrate extraordinary-and-compelling reasons warranted
sentence reduction.
Denial of a compassionate-release motion is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The
denial may be affirmed “on any basis supported by the record”, such as the
court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United
States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at
693–94 (noting reversal not justified if “the appellate court might reasonably
have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate” (citation
omitted)).
As reflected above, our court need not consider the district court’s
exhaustion and extraordinary-and-compelling circumstances conclusions
because it did not abuse its discretion by, alternatively and independently,
concluding a sentence reduction was not warranted, based on the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–
94 & n.3 (noting “a court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an
error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence” (citation
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2