USA v. Deem, No. 21-30493 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-30493 Document: 00516304207 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit FILED United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit May 3, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk No. 21-30493 Summary Calendar United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Steven Deem, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:13-CR-149-1 Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Steven Deem, federal prisoner # 16418-035, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. The district court denied relief based upon its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-30493 Document: 00516304207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2022 No. 21-30493 factors, and we review that denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Although Deem argues that the district court failed to consider his post-sentencing conduct and minimal likelihood of recidivism as reflected in two risk assessments, we do not consider the second assessment since it was not before the district court. See Theriot v. Par. of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). The order denying compassionate release indicates that the district court sufficiently considered the first risk assessment, but the court nevertheless concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief in light of, inter alia, Deem’s criminal history as a child-sex offender and the fact that he had served less than half of his 20-year sentence for an offense that carried a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018); § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-(C); 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1). Deem’s disagreement with the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. He fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief. See id. at 693. Deem’s motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is GRANTED, his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED, and the order of the district court 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.
