USA v. Fleming, No. 23-20503 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-20503 Document: 46-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 26, 2024 No. 23-20503 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Rhonda Fleming, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:07-CR-513-1 ______________________________ Before Smith, Southwick, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Rhonda Fleming, federal prisoner #20446-009, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal of the denial of her motion for compasssionate release, filed per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Fleming asserts that the district court erred by determining that she had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduced sentence and _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-20503 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2024 No. 23-20503 that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. We review the denial of the motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief; specifically, the court cited Fleming’s history and characteristics and the need for the sentence to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and adequately deter criminal conduct. See § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (B). Although Fleming disagrees with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors, her disagreement is not a sufficient ground for reversal. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694. Because Fleming has failed to demonstrate that there is a nonfrivolous argument that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider her arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling reasons. See id. at 693–94. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.24 (5th Cir. 1997); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Fleming is WARNED that additional frivolous or repetitive filings in this court or the district court will result in monetary sanctions and limits on her access to this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. Fleming’s motion for the appointment of counsel, motion for bail pending appeal, motion for summary disposition, motion to expedite appeal, and motion to transfer the appeal are all DENIED. 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.
