United States v. Snodgrass

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 27, 2021
Docket20-61148
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Snodgrass (United States v. Snodgrass) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Snodgrass, (5th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

Case: 20-61148 Document: 00515998419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2021

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 20-61148 August 27, 2021 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Tiffany Snodgrass,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:17-CR-6-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Tiffany Snodgrass, federal prisoner # 20160-043, filed a motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court dismissed the motion without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Snodgrass appeals.

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-61148 Document: 00515998419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2021

No. 20-61148

A § 3582(c)(1)(A) compassionate release motion may be filed by a defendant “after [she] has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons [BOP] 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.” § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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). The Government raised the exhaustion rule in the district court. The district court found that Snodgrass admitted that she did not request relief from the BOP. On appeal, Snodgrass does not challenge this finding. The record is undisputed that Snodgrass did not exhaust her administrative remedies before filing the instant motion in the district court. AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Zaira Franco
973 F.3d 465 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Snodgrass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-snodgrass-ca5-2021.