United States v. Sullivan

Case: 21-10033 Document: 00516276686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
April 12, 2022
No. 21-10033
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Melissa Jo Sullivan,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:20-CV-1371

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Melissa Jo Sullivan, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from
the denial of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate
release. In support of her motion, she contends that: (1) she has multiple
medical conditions that places her at increased risk for severe illness if she

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10033 Document: 00516276686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022

No. 21-10033

were to contract COVID-19, which, she alleges, is present at her prison;
(2) she completed eight years of her sentence, (3) she demonstrated post-
sentencing rehabilitation, (4) she accumulated programming credits that
justified an early release, (5) she developed a viable post-release plan; and
(6) unreliable information was used at her sentencing hearing to calculate the
quantity of drugs for which she was responsible.
The district court denied the motion sua sponte without receiving a
response from the Government. It held that Sullivan had not made the
showing required to obtain a reduction in sentence because the
circumstances that she described were not extraordinary or compelling. It
also noted that, even if these were extraordinary and compelling reasons, a
reduction in sentence should still be denied because Sullivan is relatively
young, previously had her sentenced reduced, and remained a danger to the
safety of other people and the community. Further, the district court stated
that, after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court was “not
inclined to grant relief.”
Upon careful review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion.
Although the district court denied the motion prior to this court’s issuance
of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021), we find that the
district court’s order is not in conflict with that case. While it cited to
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 at various points in its order, it did not indicate reliance on
it. The district court’s order provided multiple alternative reasons for its
denial, none of which expressly depended on § 1B1.13. See United States v.
Steele, 852 F. App’x 147, 148 (5th Cir. 2021) (unpublished); United States v.
Coats, 853 F. App’x 941, 942–43 (5th Cir. 2021) (unpublished).
The district court’s order is AFFIRMED.