United States v. Clark
20-10094
| 5th Cir. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- Telasa Clark III pleaded guilty to bank robbery and two counts of using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence and was sentenced to 600 months’ imprisonment plus five years’ supervised release.
- Clark moved for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (First Step Act), arguing he would now face a 180‑month sentence under current law and pointing to his rehabilitation efforts.
- The district court denied Clark’s § 3582(c) motion solely because Clark had not shown an "extraordinary and compelling" reason as listed in the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
- The Government moved to dismiss Clark’s appeal as untimely; Clark filed a reply and a notice of appeal within the 30‑day extension period, and the district court later granted IFP (implicitly finding excusable neglect).
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court erred: the § 1B1.13 commentary is not binding on courts deciding prisoner‑filed § 3582 motions, and the district court did not appear to consider the § 3553(a) sentencing factors as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal | Clark’s notice of appeal was untimely | Clark filed within the 30‑day extension and IFP implies excusable neglect | Motion to dismiss denied; appeal treated as timely/extension found |
| Whether §1B1.13 commentary binds district courts | District court can rely on §1B1.13 commentary to deny relief | Commentary is not exhaustive or binding after the First Step Act | Commentary is not binding; district courts are not limited to it |
| Whether district considered §3553(a) and abused discretion | Denial was proper based on lack of "extraordinary and compelling" reason | District failed to consider §3553(a) factors, so denial was an abuse of discretion | Vacated and remanded because §3553(a) factors were not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Golding, 739 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1984) (treats late notice within 30‑day extension as motion for excusable neglect)
- United States v. Quimby, 636 F.2d 86 (5th Cir. 1981) (granting in forma pauperis can imply excusable neglect)
- United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2020) (denial of §3582(c)(1)(A) reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Larry, 632 F.3d 933 (5th Cir. 2011) (district courts must consider §3553(a) factors when ruling)
- United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021) (policy statement/commentary to §1B1.13 does not bind district courts on prisoner motions)