United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20365

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Richard Redmon Anderson, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-456-1 

______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Richard Redmon Anderson, federal prisoner # 18279-379, appeals the 

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

On appeal, Anderson contends that extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances warrant relief. He argues that if he were sentenced today, his 

guidelines range would be drastically lower due to an intervening change in 

_____________________

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 6, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20365 Document: 51-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/06/2024
No. 23-20365

2

the sentencing laws. Specifically, he argues that if he were sentenced today, 

under the Supreme Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 

(2013), he only would be held accountable for 100 grams of a controlled 

substance instead of the 1,081.03 kilograms of marijuana equivalency.

We review the denial of Anderson’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for 

compassionate release for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 103, the 

Supreme Court held that facts that increase a mandatory minimum sentence, 

like those that increase a statutory maximum, must be admitted by the 

defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevant ruling 

in Alleyne, however, is inapplicable in the context of the Sentencing 

Guidelines. See United States v. Stanford, 805 F.3d 557, 570 (5th Cir. 2015). 

Thus, for purposes of determining an offense level, drug quantity does not 

have to be admitted by the defendant or found by a jury beyond a reasonable 

doubt. United States v. Hinojosa, 749 F.3d 407, 412-13 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Accordingly, because the sentencing court’s determination that Anderson 

was accountable for 1,081.03 kilograms of marijuana equivalency did not 

increase the mandatory minimum for his offense, Alleyne has no bearing on 

Anderson’s sentence. 

In his motion before the district court, Anderson further alleged that 

he was entitled to relief under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. 

This amendment reduced the base offense levels for most drugs in the Drug 

Quantity Table set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. See U.S.S.G., App. C, Amend. 

782; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(d); United States v. Taber, 643 F. App’x 452, 452 (5th 

Cir. 2016). On appeal, however, Anderson failed to raise this argument in his 

brief. We, therefore, find that he has abandoned this argument and we need 

not address it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

Case: 23-20365 Document: 51-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/06/2024
No. 23-20365

3

Because Anderson fails to demonstrate that the district court abused 

its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate release based on its 

implicit finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and compelling 

circumstances, we do not reach his argument that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 

factors warranted relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 

(5th Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. Accordingly, the district court’s 

decision is, in all respects, 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-20365 Document: 51-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/06/2024