Case: 22-11151 Document: 00516698590 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-11151
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ April 3, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Joshua William Jackson,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CR-196-1
______________________________
Before Haynes, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Joshua William Jackson, federal prisoner # 54191-177, seeks to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the denial of his motion for
compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Jackson contends that the district court failed to consider and provide
sufficient reasons for concluding that the following extraordinary and
compelling reasons did not warrant compassionate release: (1) intervening
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-11151 Document: 00516698590 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-11151
changes in law render his 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) conviction unconstitutional;
(2) the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines when calculating
his 156-month sentence; (3) his repeated COVID-19 infections; (4) his
inability to be vaccinated due to allergies; (4) his rehabilitative efforts since
sentencing; and (5) his eligibility to receive time credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3632(d). Jackson further argues that the district court abused its discretion
in denying relief based solely on the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2), without consideration and explanation of the remaining
§ 3553(a) factors.
Here, the district court explicitly stated that it had considered
Jackson’s arguments for a lower sentence, including his
postsentence rehabilitation and the intervening changes in law cited by
Jackson, when concluding that compassionate release was not warranted
under a balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Jackson’s disagreement with how
the district court balanced the § 3553(a) sentencing factors is insufficient to
demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue for appeal. See United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, Jackson has failed to show a nonfrivolous issue with
respect to the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release
based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See id. at 693. As
such, this court need not consider Jackson’s contention that extraordinary
and compelling reasons justified 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).
Jackson failed to heed the district court’s warning regarding the filing
of repetitive motions seeking a sentence reduction or compassionate release.
2
Case: 22-11151 Document: 00516698590 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-11151
Instead, he continued to file repetitive motions, as well as a letter threatening
to continue to do so “every 60 to 90 days.” Therefore, Jackson does not
demonstrate a nonfrivolous issue with respect to whether the district court
abused its inherent power to impose a sanction requiring Jackson to obtain
the consent of the district court prior to filing any future motion seeking a
sentence reduction or compassionate release. See Gelabert v. Lynaugh, 894
F.2d 746, 747-48 (5th Cir. 1990); see also Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544
(5th Cir. 1990) (upholding a pre-filing review procedure).
The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See
Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Jackson’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is
DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
3