Filed: Oct. 19, 2021
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2021
Case: 21-60469 Document: 00516060477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
October 19, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:08-CR-130-3
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Torenda Whitmore, federal prisoner # 15123-043, was convicted by a
jury of two counts of kidnapping, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), for
which she is serving concurrent 292-month terms of imprisonment.
Whitmore now challenges the district court’s denial of her second motion for
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60469 Document: 00516060477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2021
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). She argues that
her chronic medical conditions, which put her at greater risk of COVID-19
complications, combined with her inability to protect herself adequately
while incarcerated, present extraordinary and compelling reasons for her
release. Additionally, she contends that she does not pose a danger to the
community and that the likelihood she would reoffend is nonexistent.
We review the district court’s decision to deny a prisoner’s motion
for compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283
, 286 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691
, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court concluded that
Whitmore was not entitled to an early release because her medical
conditions, coupled with her generalized fear of COVID-19, did not
constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons and further because the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against her release. Whitmore fails to show
that the district court abused its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
and denying her motion. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.