United States v. Lindsay

Case: 20-51041 Document: 00515955126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/28/2021

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

FILED
July 28, 2021
No. 20-51041
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Stephanee Lindsay,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:18-CR-23-7

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Stephanee Lindsay, federal prisoner # 79335-180, appeals the denial
of her 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We
review the denial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948
F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-51041 Document: 00515955126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/28/2021

No. 20-51041

Even if a movant otherwise qualifies for a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
reduction, a district court may deny relief based solely upon its consideration
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Id. at 693-94. While the district court
must provide specific factual reasons for its decision to deny a motion for a
sentence reduction, id. at 693, the amount of explanation needed depends
“upon the circumstances of the particular case,” Chavez-Meza v. United
States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). “In some cases, it may be sufficient for
purposes of appellate review that the judge simply relied upon the record,
while making clear that he or she has considered the parties’ arguments and
taken account of the § 3553(a) factors.” Id.
The district court cataloged the parties’ pleadings (which largely
debated whether the § 3553(a) factors warranted relief) and explicitly stated
that it had denied relief after considering, inter alia, the § 3553(a) factors. The
district court thus indicated that it had considered the parties’ arguments,
and it provided a sufficient, albeit brief, explanation for the denial. See
Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965-68. While Lindsay argues at length that the
district court misbalanced the § 3553(a) factors, her disagreement does not
warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. She fails to show that the
district court abused its discretion. Id. at 693.
AFFIRMED.

2