United States v. Mitchell

Case: 21-40495 Document: 00516283810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 18, 2022
No. 21-40495 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cory Carnell Mitchell,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-8-1
Before Jones, Duncan, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cory Carnell Mitchell, federal prisoner # 05345-479, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal from the denial of his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends
that the district court abused its discretion by improperly applying U.S.S.G.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40495 Document: 00516283810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2022
No. 21-40495
§ 1B1.13 when determining that he failed to show extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d
388, 392-93 (5th Cir. 2021).
Here, the court adequately considered Mitchell’s arguments, and the
record supports its conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed
against release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965
(2018); see also United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
Mitchell abandons any challenge to the district court’s findings regarding the
§ 3553(a) factors. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider Mitchell’s arguments challenging
the district court’s conclusion that he failed to show extraordinary and
compelling reasons warranting relief. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354,
360-62 (5th Cir. 2021).
As Mitchell fails to identify a nonfrivolous argument for appeal, we
DENY his motion for leave to proceed IFP and we DISMISS his appeal as
frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir. 1997);
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
2