Case: 21-50297 Document: 00516499216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50297 October 6, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Justin Christopher Holmes,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CR-2032-1
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Justin Christopher Holmes, federal prisoner # 01701-380, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that the district court erred in treating
the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, in finding that he did not
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50297 Document: 00516499216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2022
No. 21-50297
show extraordinary and compelling reasons justifying a reduction in
sentence, and in concluding that Holmes was a danger to the safety of others
or to the community, as defined by § 1B1.13.
Holmes has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying relief. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020). The district court adequately considered Holmes’s arguments, and
the record supports its conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors
weighed against release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,
1965 (2018); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94. Because the district court’s
independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the denial, it is unnecessary to
consider Holmes’s arguments challenging the district court’s treatment and
application of § 1B1.13 and its conclusion that Holmes failed to show
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v.
Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11
F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). To the extent Holmes challenges the
district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, his argument is
unpersuasive. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Accordingly, the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion for appointment of counsel
is DENIED.
2