Case: 24-40500 Document: 57-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-40500 consolidated with FILED No. 24-40501 February 19, 2025 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus William Samuel McLean, Jr., Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC Nos. 4:93-CR-22-1, 4:93-CR-47-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Douglas, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * William Samuel McLean, Jr., federal prisoner number 04259-078, appeals the district court’s omnibus order denying eleven various motions filed by McLean between January 2023 and July 2024. During that time period, McLean filed a twelfth motion on November 1, 2023, that was styled: “Motion for the Reduction of Sentence under Title 18 USC Section _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-40500 Document: 57-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2025

24-40500 c/w No. 24-40501 3582(c)(1)(A) and for the Appointment of Counsel in the Interest of Justice in Light of the November 1, 2023 Changes Made by the U.S.S.C. to U.S.S.G.

Section 1B1.13(6) as I have Over 10 Flat Years Completed on My Current Sentence and Could Not Receive the Same Sentence Today as I did When I was Previously Convicted and Sentence by this Honorable Court” (Compassionate Release Motion). On appeal, McLean argues that the district court erred by (i) converting his Compassionate Release Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) to a motion for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2), based on Amendment 821 to the Guidelines and (ii) failing to provide notice that it had appointed him counsel.

Because the district court’s omnibus order did not address the Compassionate Release Motion and there is no appealable order regarding the district court’s failure to provide notice of the appointment of counsel, we lack jurisdiction to consider McLean’s challenges on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Moreover, because McLean does not challenge the district court’s denial of the eleven motions that are explicitly listed in the omnibus order, any such challenge is abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the foregoing reasons, we DISMISS the appeals, in part, for lack of jurisdiction and AFFIRM the district court’s order in all other respects.

McLean’s motions to expedite his appeals and for leave to file an appendix are DENIED.