United States v. Summons

Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50205

FILED April 13, 2022

Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Shahied Summons,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17-CR-249-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Shahied Summons, federal prisoner # 55633-060, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Summons argues that the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in violation of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2022

No. 21-50205

He further contends that the district court failed to consider his post- sentencing rehabilitation or provide specific factual reasons for denying his motion. In addition, Summons moves this court for permission to file an out of time reply brief.

We need not resolve whether the district court committed Shkambi error by treating the policy statement in § 1B1.13 as binding, see United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2021); Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393, because the district court independently determined that compassionate release was not warranted based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); cf. Cooper, 996 F.3d at 288-89. The district court stated that it had completely reviewed Summons’s motion, which advanced his rehabilitation argument, and then cited specific § 3553(a) factors as its basis for concluding that relief was not warranted. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020); § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). The district court was not required to specifically address each argument raised by Summons. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); see also United States v. Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).

Because Summons has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of his motion resulted from an “error of law or clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence,” the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. His motion to file an out of time reply brief is GRANTED.