USA v. Alexander, No. 22-11041 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-11041 Document: 00516665994 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-11041 Summary Calendar ____________ FILED March 3, 2023 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 Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Christopher Alexander, federal prisoner #25906-177, was sentenced to life imprisonment for a drug-trafficking conspiracy involving cocaine base. On motion by Alexander, the district court reduced the sentence to 480 months of imprisonment per section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 404, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222. After our decision affirming the judgment, Alexander filed another motion on the basis that _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 22-11041 Document: 00516665994 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/03/2023 No. 22-11041 Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 2389 (2022), required a further reduction in light of intervening changes in the law and that a plenary sentencing hearing should be held. See United States v. Alexander, No. 21-10929, 2022 WL 1549473 (5th Cir. May 17, 2022) (unpublished). In Concepcion, the Court held that if a defendant has a covered offense and is eligible, a district court may consider intervening legal and factual developments, including a post-sentencing rehabilitation, when deciding whether to reduce under the FSA. Concepcion, 142 S. Ct. at 2402–04. Alexander’s theory that Concepcion should be read to mandate a plenary sentencing hearing is unavailing. See id. at 2404; United States v. Jackson, 945 F.3d 315, 321 (5th Cir. 2019). The district court considered Alexander’s motion and determined that a further reduction was not warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, specifically public safety issues and Alexander’s post-sentencing conduct. Alexander’s failure to challenge the district court’s reasons for determining that a further reduction was not warranted constitutes an abandonment of the issue on appeal. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446–47 (5th Cir. 2010). We do not consider Alexander’s newly raised claim that his 480month sentence is substantively unreasonable. See Fillingham v. United States, 867 F.3d 531, 539 (5th Cir. 2017). In any event, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Batiste, 980 F.3d 466, 480 (5th Cir. 2020). Alexander has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion. See id. at 469. 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.
