Case: 20-50831 Document: 00515949690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 23, 2021
No. 20-50831 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Martin Hernandez, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:16-CR-148-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Martin Hernandez, Jr, federal prisoner # 61727-280, moved for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court
found that Hernandez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and
denied the motion on its merits. On appeal, Hernandez argues that the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50831 Document: 00515949690 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/23/2021
No. 20-50831
district court abused its discretion by failing to find extraordinary and
compelling reasons to grant the motion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948
F.3d 691, 693 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2020); United States v. Barry, 978 F.3d 214, 217
(5th Cir. 2020).
The district court found that Hernandez did not exhaust his
administrative remedies before he filed his motion for compassionate release.
The pre-filing administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional,
but it is a mandatory claim-processing rule. See United States v. Franco, 973
F.3d 465, 467-68 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 920 (2020). In this case,
the Government raised the exhaustion rule in the district court and submitted
an affidavit from a bureau of prison’s official certifying that the bureau of
prisons had no record of any request for compassionate release from
Hernandez. Accordingly, the district court’s factual finding that Hernandez
did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the instant motion
in the district court is plausible when considered in the context of the entire
record. See Barry, 978 F.3d at 217. We affirm on this basis. See United States
v. Chacon, 742 F.3d 219, 220 (5th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
2