Case: 21-10929 Document: 00516321584 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 17, 2022
No. 21-10929
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Alexander,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:01-CR-60-1
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Alexander, federal prisoner # 25906-177, was sentenced
to life imprisonment following convictions for a drug-trafficking conspiracy
involving cocaine base. Upon motion by Alexander, the district court
reduced his life sentence to 480 months of imprisonment pursuant to § 404
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10929 Document: 00516321584 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2022
No. 21-10929
of the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222.
Alexander appeals the extent of the sentence reduction granted by the district
court, as well as the court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration. He
contends that the district court did not adequately explain the reasons for its
decision only to reduce his sentence to 480 months of imprisonment or
provide him an opportunity to object prior to issuing its ruling on his § 404
motion.
The record reflects that the district court had before it Alexander’s
motion, the Government’s response, and the probation officer’s worksheet.
The district court explicitly stated in its order that it had considered the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and determined that a sentence reduction from life
to 480 months of imprisonment was appropriate in light of public safety
issues and Alexander’s post-sentencing conduct. This explanation, which
was the basis for the Government’s opposition to a reduction below 480
months, was sufficient for meaningful appellate review. See United States v.
Whitehead, 986 F.3d 547, 551 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Batiste, 980
F.3d 466, 479 (5th Cir. 2020). To the extent that the district court denied
Alexander an opportunity to object prior to issuing its ruling, any error was
harmless given that the district court considered Alexander’s objections
when ruling on his motion to reconsider and Alexander fails to indicate what
further objections he would have raised before the court. See United States v.
Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Gonzalez-
Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 984 (5th Cir. 1997)).
We do not consider Alexander’s arguments that he was denied a copy
and opportunity to object to the probation officer’s worksheet and that he
was denied a right to counsel because he raises these arguments for the first
time in his reply brief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir.
1993). Alexander has not shown that the district court abused its discretion
with respect to his motions. See Batiste, 980 F.3d at 469; United States v.
2
Case: 21-10929 Document: 00516321584 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2022
No. 21-10929
Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the orders of the
district court are AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Alexander
Combined Opinion