United States v. Henton

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2024
• Docket: 23-50808
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 23-50808 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50808 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ July 18, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Duron Wilson Henton,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:13-CR-403-1 ______________________________

Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Duron Wilson Henton, federal prisoner # 31361-039, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. He contends that the district court erred both by determining that the improper imposition of a career-offender enhancement at his sentencing did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-50808 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2024

No. 23-50808

for granting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief and by failing to provide an adequate explanation for that determination. However, Henton does not address, and has therefore abandoned any challenge to, the district court’s separate determination that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support granting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that pro se appellant must brief arguments to preserve them); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (observing that failure to identify any error in district court’s analysis is same as if appellant had not appealed). We therefore need not consider Henton’s arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling reasons. See United States v. Rollins, 53 F.4th 353, 358 (5th Cir. 2022) (observing that this court routinely affirms denials of compassionate release that are independently supported by district court’s weighing of § 3553(a) factors). AFFIRMED.