United States v. Pendleton ( 2022 )

Case: 21-30452 Document: 00516342208 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-30452 June 2, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cornell Pendleton,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:16-CR-41-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cornell Pendleton, federal prisoner #36683-034, appeals the district
court’s denial of his second 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
compassionate release. The district court determined, contrary to
Pendelton’s assertion, that United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.
2021) had no bearing on the denial of Pendleton’s initial motion for
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-30452 Document: 00516342208 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2022
No. 21-30452
compassionate release. The district court further held that Pendleton failed
to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Pendleton makes two arguments on appeal:
First, Pendleton contends the district court abused its discretion when
it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in denying his motion for
compassionate release. We disagree. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d
431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021). Because the district
court determined that Pendleton failed to properly identify extraordinary and
compelling reasons justifying relief, there was no need to analyze the
§ 3553(a) factors. See id. at 433-35.
Second, Pendleton says the district court erroneously discounted
evidence supporting his assertion of extraordinary and compelling
circumstances. We do not consider this argument, though, as Pendleton
presented it for the first time in his reply brief. See United States v. Peterson,
977 F.3d 381, 394 n.5 (5th Cir. 2020).
The district court’s denial of Pendleton’s second motion for
compassionate release is AFFIRMED. Pendleton’s motion to expedite is
DENIED.
2