USA v. Gilmore

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________

No. 26-30063
Summary Calendar
____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Winston Gilmore,

Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:03-CR-274-4
______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Wilson and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
*

Winston Gilmore, federal prisoner # 28584-034, appeals the district
court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate
release. Gilmore contends that extraordinary and compelling reasons exist
for his compassionate release, focusing on various changes in the law that he
claims would result in a lower sentence if he were sentenced today and
additionally contending that his is an “unusually long sentence” under

*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 17, 2026

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 26-30063 Document: 43-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 26-30063
2
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6). As to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, he argues that
“the objectives of deterrence and protection of the public” “will not be
served by” denying him compassionate release because of “his post-
conviction rehabilitation” and the fact that “he has accepted responsibility
for his actions.” He further argues that that he has “not incurred any
convictions or meaningful infractions while in prison these past years” and,
instead, has compiled “an extraordinary prison record and [a] very
commendable progress in his post sentencing rehabilitation efforts.”
The Government argues, among other things, that Gilmore failed to
properly exhaust or present his arguments for compassionate release to the
Bureau of Prisons prior to the filing of his motion. However, we may
pretermit the exhaustion issue where, as here, the case can easily be resolved
on the merits. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 2020).
We review the denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
We need not consider Gilmore’s arguments concerning extraordinary and
compelling reasons, because “we have regularly affirmed the denial of a
compassionate-release motion . . . where the district court’s weighing of the
[18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) factors can independently support its judgment.”
United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1092-93 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); see Ward
v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021). Such is the case here.
As regards the § 3553(a) factors, the district court found that the
nature and circumstance of Gilmore’s offenses did not weigh in favor of
release because his offenses involved second-degree kidnapping, two
murders, and the attempted murders of two additional people. See
§ 3553(a)(1). The court additionally found that Gilmore’s life sentence was
needed to reflect the seriousness of his crimes, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment, deter criminal conduct, and protect the public from
Case: 26-30063 Document: 43-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2026

No. 26-30063
3
further crime. See § 3553(a)(2)(A). At most, Gilmore’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 those
factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See Chambliss,
948 F.3d at 694.
AFFIRMED.

Case: 26-30063 Document: 43-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2026