Case: 21-40213 Document: 00516339415 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 1, 2022
No. 21-40213
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Arthur James Pierre,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:10-CR-36-32
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Arthur James Pierre, federal prisoner # 15550-043, appeals the denial
of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We
review the denial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-40213 Document: 00516339415 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2022
No. 21-40213
Relying on United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 390-93 (5th Cir.
2021), Pierre argued in his appellant’s brief only that the district court had
erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and dismissing his motion for
lack of jurisdiction. After we ordered a limited remand, the district court
reconsidered Pierre’s claims in light of Shkambi, and it issued a supplemental
order denying relief on the ground that he had failed to show extraordinary
and compelling reasons. See § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Despite that he was afforded
the opportunity to address the district court’s supplemental order, Pierre
failed to do so; he has, therefore, abandoned any challenges to it. See Yohey
v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). He fails to show that the
district court abused its discretion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. 1
AFFIRMED.
1
The factual reasons for the district court’s conclusions are thoroughly outlined in
a detailed twelve-page order discussing, inter alia, Pierre’s current health concerns, his
post-sentencing disciplinary history, and the parties’ competing arguments. This detailed
assessment certainly satisfies the “specifical factual reasons” required for meaningful
appellate review. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693; see also United States v. Suttle, No. 21-50576,
2022 WL 1421164 (5th Cir. 2022)(unpub.); United States v. Sauseda, No. 21-50210, 2022
WL 989371 (5th Cir. 2022)(unpub.).
2