Case: 21-40048 Document: 00515906665 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40048 June 21, 2021
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kyle Thomas Dugger,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-40-1
Before King, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Kyle Thomas Dugger, federal prisoner # 26971-078, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion requesting
a compassionate release reduction in his sentence based on his health
conditions, his family situation, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The district
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40048 Document: 00515906665 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 21-40048
court concluded that Dugger had not established extraordinary and
compelling circumstances warranting release. In addition, the district court
considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and found that release was
inappropriate.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because Dugger filed the
motion for compassionate release, the district court’s decision is “bound
only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).”
United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). Here, although
the district court denied the motion because it found no compelling or
extraordinary reasons for a sentence reduction in light of the factors set forth
in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, it also ruled that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in
favor of a reduction, given the nature of the offense and Dugger’s personal
characteristics, the need for deterrence, the need for just punishment, and
the need to protect the public. We may affirm on any basis supported in the
record. United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dugger’s
motion based on its weighing of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court
could rely on information outside the factual basis of Dugger’s guilty plea to
determine the seriousness of the offense and the danger to the community.
See, e.g., United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 619 (5th Cir 2013) (noting that
a presentence report generally contains sufficient indicia of reliability to
permit a district court to rely on it at sentencing in the absence of rebuttal
evidence). Although Dugger contends that the district court judge has failed
to grant compassionate release in any case and that he therefore faces a
sentencing disparity when compared to individuals who were granted relief
by other judges, he has not shown that any such disparity was unwarranted
or that he was similarly situated to those other defendants. See § 3553(a)(6);
2
Case: 21-40048 Document: 00515906665 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 21-40048
United States v. Waguespack, 935 F.3d 322, 337 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 827 (2020). In addition, Dugger has failed to establish that the
district court’s decision evinced bias against him. See Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); United States v. Mizell, 88 F.3d 288, 300 (5th Cir.
1996).
We afford deference to the district court’s consideration of the
§ 3553(a) factors. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Dugger does not meaningfully
cite to an error of law or point to a clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence, and his mere disagreement with the court’s balancing of the
§ 3553(a) factors “is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Id. at 694.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3