Case: 20-51017 Document: 00515908191 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 21, 2021
No. 20-51017
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Anthony Shorter,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:15-CR-22-2
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Michael Anthony Shorter, federal prisoner
# 77558-380, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, he contends
that the district court failed to adequately explain its decision denying his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-51017 Document: 00515908191 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-51017
motion for a sentence reduction and that the district court abused its
discretion in relying on the policy statements set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.1
We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence after it
considers the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors if “extraordinary and
compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
The district court must provide specific reasons for its decision to deny a
motion for a sentence reduction, Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693, but 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.
Despite Shorter’s assertions to the contrary, the record reflects that
the district court gave due consideration to Shorter’s request for
compassionate release. Its explanation was brief, but the district court
referenced Shorter’s motion for a sentence reduction, his supplemental brief,
supplemental documents, and the Government’s response, and the court
explicitly stated that it took into account the relevant § 3553(a) factors and
the applicable policy statements before it found that a sentence reduction was
not warranted. See Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. at 1965. Moreover, because both
1
Shorter also insists that the district court failed to address his assertions that he
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction, that
he exhausted his administrative remedies, and that he was not a danger to the community.
We do not reach these contentions because the district court correctly disposed of the
motion after considering the § 3553(a) factors.
2
Case: 20-51017 Document: 00515908191 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/21/2021
No. 20-51017
Shorter and the Government presented contentions regarding the sentencing
factors, the record reflects that the district court considered the § 3553(a)
factors. See id. at 1968. Shorter might disagree with how the district court
balanced the § 3553(a) factors, but that is not a basis for determining that the
district court abused its discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
Shorter is correct that the policy statements and commentary set forth
in § 1B1.13 are not binding. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
considering “the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission” because the court also denied Shorter a sentence reduction
based on a balancing of the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Shkambi,
993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
Accordingly, the district court’s order is AFFIRMED.
3