Case: 20-51019 Document: 00515953791 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 27, 2021
No. 20-51019
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Shelly Mixon,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 7:18-CR-175-2
Before Smith, Stewart, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Shelly Mixon, federal prisoner #12079-480, appeals the denial of her
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Mixon con-
tends that the district court erred in failing to find that her medical condi-
tions, in combination with the COVID-19 pandemic, constitute extraordinary
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin-
ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances
set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-51019 Document: 00515953791 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2021
No. 20-51019
and compelling circumstances justifying release. She also asserts, for the first
time, that release is warranted because she is the only available caregiver for
her ailing mother. Because the caregiving issue was not raised in the district
court as a basis for granting compassionate release, we will not consider it.
See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999).
We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a prisoner’s motion for
compassionate release. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th
Cir. 2020). “[A] court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error
of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). In ruling on such a motion, a district court
is “bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and . . . the sentencing factors in
[18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir.
2021).
The district court denied Mixon’s motion because it found no com-
pelling or extraordinary reasons for a sentence reduction, and, alternatively,
because the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of a reduction. Mixon’s
contentions on appeal are addressed exclusively to the averment that she
demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances; she does not
brief any argument addressing the assessment of the § 3553(a) factors and has
thus failed to identify any error of law or to demonstrate a clearly erroneous
assessment of the evidence. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693; see also Yohey v.
Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224−25 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cothran,
302 F.3d 279, 286 n.7 (5th Cir. 2002).
The order denying compassionate release is AFFIRMED.
2