Case: 20-60701 Document: 00515727863 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 1, 2021
No. 20-60701 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Dustin Powell,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:16-CR-75-2
Before Stewart, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Dustin Powell, federal prisoner # 19791-043, appeals the district
court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under the First Step
Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied Powell’s
motion on the ground that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60701 Document: 00515727863 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 20-60701
prior to filing his motion as is required by § 3582(c)(1)(A). See United States
v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5997, 2020
WL 7132458 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2020).
Although we review a district court’s denial of a motion for
compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for abuse of discretion,
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020), the parties
contend that our review in this case is de novo because the issue presented is
purely legal or a matter of statutory interpretation. We need not determine
the standard of review as Powell cannot prevail even under the more lenient
de novo standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir.
2008).
A district court may grant a prisoner compassionate release pursuant
to § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See Franco, 973 F.3d at 467. A § 3582(c)(1)(A)
compassionate release motion may be filed by a defendant after “[he] has
fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of
Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days
from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility,
whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The pre-filing
administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but it is a
mandatory claim-processing rule. See Franco, 973 F.3d at 467-68.
Powell first submitted his request for compassionate release to the
warden of his correctional facility on April 15, 2020. His motion for
compassionate release was received and docketed in the district court on May
11, 2020, or 26 days after he submitted his request to the warden. Because
he failed to allow the statutory 30-day period to lapse before filing his motion
and he otherwise fails to show that he fully exhausted all administrative rights
to appeal, we discern no error in the district court’s denial of his motion for
failure to exhaust. See Franco, 973 F.3d at 467-68. His argument that he
2
Case: 20-60701 Document: 00515727863 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2021
No. 20-60701
complied with § 3582(c)(1)(A), because 30 days elapsed from the dates that
he submitted his requests for compassionate release to the warden and the
date that the district court ruled on his motion is unavailing. See id. at 468
(“The First Step Act, in clear language, specifies what a defendant must do
before [he] files a motion for compassionate release in federal court.”
(emphasis added)). Likewise, Powell’s argument that he should be excused
from complying with § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement based on
equitable reasons is also unavailing. See Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1857
(2016); Franco, 973 F.3d at 468.
AFFIRMED.
3
United States v. Powell
Combined Opinion