Filed: Dec. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2020
Case: 20-60665 Document: 00515688491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 29, 2020
No. 20-60665 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael Todd Ward, also known as Chicken,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:17-CR-68-5
Before Haynes, Higginson, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael Todd Ward sought compassionate release from prison under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) due to his fear of contracting COVID-19. For
the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of his
request.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60665 Document: 00515688491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-60665
Ward is currently serving a 151-month prison sentence for conspiring
to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
On April 24, 2020, he submitted a request for compassionate release to the
warden of the institution at which he is incarcerated, asserting that he is more
vulnerable to COVID-19 due to his underlying medical conditions. The
Bureau of Prisons denied his request two days later. On May 7, 2020, Ward
filed an informal complaint resolution form, challenging the denial of his
initial request for compassionate release. This complaint was denied on June
2, 2020.
Prior to the denial of his informal complaint, on May 21, 2020, Ward
moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) in
district court. The Government opposed Ward’s motion, asserting that
Ward had not met § 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement. The district
court agreed with the Government and consequently dismissed Ward’s
motion without prejudice.
Under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), a district court may “modify a term of
imprisonment” if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a
reduction.” Yet a defendant may only request such relief “after the
defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of
the Bureau of Prisons 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). This exhaustion
“requirement is not jurisdictional, but . . . is mandatory.” United States v.
Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, No. 20-5997,
2020 WL
7132458 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2020). Hence, when there is a lack of waiver by the
Government, a defendant seeking compassionate release must first submit a
request for release to his warden and wait until he has “fully exhausted all
administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a
motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of
2
Case: 20-60665 Document: 00515688491 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-60665
such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility,” before he can file
in federal court. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
There is no dispute that Ward had not fully exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to filing his motion for compassionate relief.
Thus, the dispute here centers on the meaning of the “lapse of 30 days”
language. The district court ruled that the “lapse of 30 days” exhaustion
method “applies only when the [Bureau of Prisons] has failed to respond to
a compassionate release request within 30 days of its submission.” United
States v. Ward, No. 1:17cr68-LG-JCG-5, 2020 WL 4032245, at *1 (S.D. Miss.
July 16, 2020). Because Ward’s initial request was denied within thirty days
of its submission, the district court held that this exhaustion method was
inapplicable, and that Ward needed to fully exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing a motion in federal court.
Id. at *2.
On appeal, Ward disputes the district court’s interpretation of
§ 3582(c)(1)(A), arguing that a defendant is free to file in federal court thirty
days after the submission of a request to the warden, regardless of whether
the Bureau of Prisons responds within the thirty-day period.1 However, even
under Ward’s preferred interpretation of the statute, Ward’s claim failed, as
he filed his motion in district court on May 21—less than thirty days after he
submitted his initial request to the warden on April 24. See United States v.
1
Notably, the Third Circuit appears to have adopted this construction of the
statute, albeit with limited explanation. See United States v. Harris, 973 F.3d 170, 171 (3d
Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (reversing a district court that held that the defendant was required
to fully exhaust his administrative remedies because the Bureau of Prisons responded to his
request for compassionate release within the thirty day period and emphasizing that “the
statute states that the defendant may file the motion thirty days after the warden receives
his request”). But see United States v. Gunn,
980 F.3d 1178, 1179 (7th Cir. 2020) (explaining
that § 3582(c)(1)(A) permits courts “to grant compassionate release on a prisoner’s own
request, provided that the prisoner first allowed the Bureau [of Prisons] to review the
request and make a recommendation (or it let 30 days pass in silence)”(emphasis added)).
3
Case: 20-60665 Document: 00515688491 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-60665
Alam, 960 F.3d 831, 832, 836 (6th Cir. 2020) (affirming the dismissal of a
motion for compassionate release that was filed less than thirty days after the
defendant requested relief from his warden). Consequently, we need not
address which interpretation is correct; we AFFIRM.
4
