Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-24-30300/USCOURTS-ca5-24-30300-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dalton Bennett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 24-30300

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Dalton Bennett, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:09-CR-177-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Jones, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Dalton Bennett, federal prisoner # 31096-034, appeals the denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Bennett 

contends that the district court erred in finding that he did not properly 

exhaust administrative remedies. He additionally argues that his is an 

unusually long sentence, which is an extraordinary and compelling reason 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 6, 2025

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 24-30300 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2025
No. 24-30300

2

warranting compassionate release under the policy statement set forth in 

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). Finally, he contends that he is entitled to 

compassionate release due to “his age at sentencing, his rehabilitation 

efforts, the communit[y’s] willingness to re-accept him back into society, and 

his lowered recidivism risk.”

We need not consider whether the district court’s exhaustion findings 

were erroneous because the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

alternatively and independently determining that compassionate release was 

not warranted based on its review of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. At most, 

Bennett’s arguments challenging the district court’s assessment of the 

§ 3553(a) factors amount to no more than a disagreement with the district 

court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief based 

on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider Bennett’s 

arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See

United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 & n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. 

United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 24-30300 Document: 45-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2025