United States v. Whitman

Case: 20-10624 Document: 00515908758 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 22, 2021 No. 20-10624 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Michelle Renee Whitman, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 2:17-CR-27-1 Before King, Smith, and Haynes, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Michelle Whitman pleaded guilty to two counts of uttering and pos- sessing a counterfeit security and was sentenced to 210 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. She appeals the denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opin- ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-10624 Document: 00515908758 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2021 No. 20-10624 The question whether Whitman exhausted her claims is not jurisdic- tional. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467−68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 920 (2020). Accordingly, we need not decide the propriety of the district court’s exhaustion determination because the judgment may be affirmed on other grounds. See id.; see also United States v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014). We review a decision denying compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision is grounded in a legal error or clearly erroneous facts. Id. Although the district court mentioned U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in its order, there is nothing in the record to indicate that it felt bound by that guideline and its commentary. Instead, the record shows that the denial was based on its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and that it did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Whitman’s arguments amount to a disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, which does not suffice to show error. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 2