USA v. Steele, No. 20-10251 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-10251 Document: 00515929894 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 8, 2021 No. 20-10251 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Jimmy Steele, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:08-CR-87-1 Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* A jury found Jimmy Steele, federal prisoner # 36989-177, guilty of possession with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10251 Document: 00515929894 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2021 No. 20-10251 U.S.C. § 924(c), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He was sentenced as a career offender to a total of 360 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release or for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We review a district court’s decision denying a motion for compassionate release and a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. United States v. Henderson, 636 F.3d 713, 717 (5th Cir. 2011). While the district court discussed U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in its order, there is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt bound by this policy statement and its commentary. Instead, the record shows that the district court’s denial of relief was also based on its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Steele’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which does not suffice to show error. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Furthermore, Steele has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to reconsider. See Rabhan, 540 F.3d at 346-47. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
