United States v. Rankin ( 2021 )

Case: 20-61152 Document: 00516026705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-61152 September 23, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Demetrius S. Rankin,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:06-CR-41-1
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Demetrius S. Rankin, federal prisoner # 03266-043, appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), as amended by the First Step Act. Rankin
argued in his motion that he was entitled to compassionate release due to the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-61152 Document: 00516026705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2021
No. 20-61152
extraordinary and compelling circumstances COVID-19 poses in a prison
setting, particularly in light of his history of multiple serious medical
conditions, including chronic bronchitis, hypertension, morbid obesity,
asthma, allergies, and anxiety.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States
v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court expressed
that it lacked authority to order home confinement and concluded that
Rankin was not entitled to an early release because his medical conditions did
not create an extraordinary or compelling circumstance and, additionally, the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in his favor.
Rankin primarily argues that the district court erred in its order
denying relief by failing to articulate the burden of proof required to establish
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate release.
Rankin’s counseled brief fails to raise any meaningful challenge to the district
court’s determination that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling
circumstances and the § 3553(a) factors disfavored release, as required for
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief, or that it lacked authority to order home
confinement. Thus, Rankin has abandoned these issues. See United States v.
Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Beasley v. McCotter, 798
F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1986). Rankin has failed to show an abuse of discretion
by the district court, and the order denying his motion for release is
AFFIRMED.
2