Summary
affirming the denial when “[t]he Government raised the exhaustion rule in the district court”
Summary of this case from United States v. LeeOpinion
20-61148
08-27-2021
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 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.
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 prefiling 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. [*] Pursuant to 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4.