United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-11051

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Jack Zimmerman, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-27-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jack Zimmerman, federal prisoner # 39657-177, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for a sentence reduction and home confinement 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Zimmerman has filed a motion for 

the appointment of counsel, and the Government has filed a 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 31, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-11051 Document: 00516185606 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2022
No. 20-11051

2

summary affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file a 

merits brief, asserting that the district court properly denied Zimmerman’s 

request for compassionate release because he conceded that he failed to 

exhaust his administrative remedies. Because Zimmerman does not 

challenge the denial of his request for home confinement, he has abandoned 

review of that claim. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 

1993). 

A defendant may file a motion for compassionate release only “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). 

Because Zimmerman acknowledges that he did not request that the warden 

file a motion for compassionate release on his behalf until after the district 

court denied his request, his challenge to the district court’s determination 

that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is foreclosed. See United 

States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 920 

(2020). Because current precedent provides a clear result, we forego further 

briefing. See United States v. Bailey, 924 F.3d 1289, 1290 (5th Cir. 2019). 

Zimmerman, however, does not concede that the issue is foreclosed, and thus 

we deny the motion for summary affirmance. See United States v. Lopez, 461 

F. App’x 372, 374 n.4 (5th Cir. 2012); 1see also United States v. Houston, 625 

F.3d 871, 873 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010) (denying summary affirmance despite 

parties’ agreement issue was foreclosed because the case the parties relied on 

did not foreclose the issue). 

1 Unpublished opinions issued after 1995 are not precedential, but they may be 

persuasive. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).

Case: 20-11051 Document: 00516185606 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2022
No. 20-11051

3

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance or, 

alternatively, for an extension of time to file a merits brief is DENIED, the 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and the motion for the 

appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Case: 20-11051 Document: 00516185606 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2022