United States v. Hurst ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20544 Document: 00516734734 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20544
FILED
May 2, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________ Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lewis Gilmore Hurst,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-355-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Lewis Gilmore Hurst, federal prisoner # 38756-179, appeals from the
district court’s denial in part of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
compassionate release. On appeal, Hurst contends that he was erroneously
sentenced as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the
sentencing error constitutes an extraordinary and compelling circumstance
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20544 Document: 00516734734 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2023
No. 22-20544
warranting relief. Because he does not reprise his arguments that
extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist due to a change in the law
as concerns the Armed Career Criminal Act and due to his susceptibility to
contracting severe COVID-19, they are abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985
F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
We review the denial of Hurst’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). “[A] prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or
the duration of a sentence.” United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th
Cir. 2023). As such, Hurst fails to demonstrate that the district court abused
its discretion in denying relief as to his argument that he could show
extraordinary and compelling circumstances inasmuch as he was erroneously
sentenced as a career offender. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district
court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2