United States v. Guillory

Case: 22-30591 Document: 00516755093 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED May 18, 2023 No. 22-30591

Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar

Clerk ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Quincy O. Guillory,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:02-CR-20062-1 ______________________________

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Quincy O. Guillory, federal prisoner # 11380-035, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. On appeal, Guillory contends that the district court erred in finding that he failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for granting relief. He additionally argues that the district court failed to acknowledge his exhibits Case: 22-30591 Document: 00516755093 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2023

No. 22-30591 or adequately consider or discuss his arguments regarding the applicability of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors that he contended weighed in favor of compassionate release.

We review the denial of Guillory’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In this case, while the district court’s analysis was fairly curt on the point, the court adequately considered Guillory’s arguments and concluded that consideration of the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2405 (2022); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). To the extent that Guillory disagrees with the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, his disagreement does not warrant reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. We need not consider Guillory’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.