USA v. Mitchell et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
VS. § ACTION NO. 6:16-cr-00008-1
CORY CARNELL MITCHELL §
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court denied the defendant’s motion for compassionate release, and the defendant
filed a notice of appeal. (Dkt. ##342, 343.) The defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
in that appeal has been referred to the undersigned for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendations for the disposition of the motion. (Dkt. #347.) For reasons explained below, the
Court recommends that the motion be denied.
I. Background
The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit kidnapping pursuant to a binding
plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) and was sentenced in April
2017 to 262 months in prison followed by 60 months of supervised release. In his eighth motion
for early release, the defendant sought compassionate release based on medical circumstances and
an unusually long sentence. The Court found the defendant’s alleged medical conditions did not
warrant compassionate release and that he had failed to establish any gross disparity between his
sentence and a sentence likely to be imposed under current guidelines. (Dkt. #342 at 3–5.) The
Court also independently determined that none of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warranted
reduction, specifically citing the seriousness of the defendant’s offense. (Id. at 5.)
Case 6:16-cr-00008-JCB-JDL Document 348 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II. IFP Standard and Application
The court may deny in forma pauperis (IFP) status in a criminal appeal when that appeal
is frivolous and the district court has certified that it is not taken in good faith. United States v. Woods,
321 F. App’x 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2009), citing United States v. Boutwell, 896 F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th
Cir. 1990) (single-judge order). See also United States v. Ramirez, 429 F. App’x 400, 401 (5th Cir.
2011) (denying in forma pauperis status in an appeal from the denial of a motion to correct an illegal
sentence under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 35 where the appellant failed to show he would raise a non-
frivolous issue on appeal); United States v. Rutherford, 831 F. App’x 713, 714 (5th Cir. 2020)
(denying in forma pauperis status in an appeal of the denial of a motion for compassionate release
where petitioner failed to identify any non-frivolous issue on appeal), citing Carson v. Polley, 689
F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).
In the present case, the defendant identifies no non-frivolous issue on appeal, and a review
of the record reveals none. Defendant references “clear evidence showing . . . abuse of discretion”
in the denial of his motion, but he does not identify that evidence or establish any arguable error
in the Court’s analysis. (Dkt. #343.) And he fails to support his conclusory legalese—“the sentence
disparity, the unusually long sentence, the determined base offense level, mitigating factors
adjustments,” etc.—with any specific circumstances about his case. (Dkt. #344.) Instead, he
appears simply to challenge his original sentence itself: “262 months as a first-time offender.” (Id.)
But the Court has specifically found that “Defendant received a sufficient but judicious sentence,
reduction of which would not be consistent with the pertinent sentencing factors.” (Dkt. #342 at
5.)
Case 6:16-cr-00008-JCB-JDL Document 348 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
In the absence of a showing of any non-frivolous issue for appeal, the Court should certify
that the defendant’s appeal is not taken in good faith and deny his pending IFP motion. See United
States v. Montoya, 788 F. App’x 276, 277 (5th Cir. 2019).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the defendant’s motion to
proceed IFP on appeal (Dkt. #346) be denied.
Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may
serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and
recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after being served with a copy
shall bar that party from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and
recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, from appellate review of unobjected-to
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on
other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen
days).
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 17th day of November, 2025.
Case 6:16-cr-00008-JCB-JDL Document 348 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>