Lopez v. Bergami

Case: 21-50214 Document: 00516037663 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-50214 September 30, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
David Lopez,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
Thomas Bergami, Warden,
Respondent—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CV-167
Before Jolly, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Lopez, federal prisoner # 17702-180, filed a habeas petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release to home confinement under
§ 12003(b)(2) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(CARES Act) and, alternatively, requesting compassionate release pursuant
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50214 Document: 00516037663 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2021
No. 21-50214
to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court concluded that Lopez had
failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his CARES Act claims and ruled
in the alternative that Lopez’s challenge to the denial of home confinement
was without merit. In addition, the court found that Lopez’s § 3582 claims
should be raised in his criminal proceedings and could not be considered in a
standalone § 2241 petition. Lopez now appeals the denial of his § 2241
petition and the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to
alter or amend judgment.
With respect to his claims under § 3582(c)(1)(A), Lopez has failed to
show that the district court erred in declining to consider his claims. See
United States v. Alvarez, 210 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v.
Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). As for his request for release
to home confinement under the CARES Act, Lopez has not briefed any
challenge to the district court’s exhaustion ruling. Accordingly, he has
abandoned any such challenge. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25
(5th Cir. 1993). He has not established that the district court erred in denying
relief on his § 2241 petition or abused its discretion in denying his Rule 59(e)
motion. See Alexander v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 867 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir
2017); Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Lopez’s motion for
compassionate release is DENIED.
2