USA v. Reedy, No. 21-10895 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-10895 Document: 00516310148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 6, 2022 No. 21-10895 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Thomas Reedy, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-54-1 Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Thomas Reedy, federal prisoner # 25673-177, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Reedy argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for compassionate release, which was based not on a medical condition but on * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 21-10895 Document: 00516310148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2022 No. 21-10895 assertions that his life sentence was excessive given the nature of his offense. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court concluded that Reedy’s arguments regarding a violation of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and a disproportionately harsh sentence did not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. Reedy’s contentions to the contrary are insufficient to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Although the district court declined to consider Reedy’s assertion that the district court miscalculated the amount of pecuniary gain for purposes of determining the relevant guidelines range, he cites no authority in this circuit suggesting that a district court can grant a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release and reduce a prisoner’s sentence on the basis of alleged errors in the calculation of the guidelines range that were considered and rejected on direct appeal. To the extent that Reedy raises arguments for the first time on appeal and seeks to rely on evidence that he did not present to the district court, we decline to consider these matters. See Theriot v. Parish of Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
