Case: 25-10274 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/23/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-10274 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ September 23, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce Brandy D. Hilton, Clerk Petitioner—Appellant, versus Tyal Rule, Warden, Carswell FMC, Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-830 ______________________________ Before Barksdale, Richman, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Brandy D. Hilton, federal prisoner # 54948-074 and proceeding pro se in district court and on appeal, contests the denial of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition and seeks appointment of counsel. The district court concluded her petition failed due to, inter alia, want of exhaustion. When considering the denial of § 2241 relief, our court reviews the district court’s _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-10274 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/23/2025

No. 25-10274

factual findings for clear error; its legal conclusions, de novo. Jeffers v. Chandler, 253 F.3d 827, 830 (5th Cir. 2001).

Hilton contends the court erred by concluding: she is not entitled to receive time credits under Section 3632 of the First Step Act of 2018 (FSA), Pub. L. No. 115-391, § 3632, 132 Stat. 5194, 5195; and her pre-release custody request is not actionable under § 2241. She failed, however, to brief the court’s ruling that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies, thereby abandoning any contention to the contrary on appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). This provides a sufficient basis on which to uphold the district court’s judgment.

Fillingham v. United States, 867 F.3d 531, 535 (5th Cir. 2017).

Turning to Hilton’s request for appointment of counsel, she fails to show the requisite exceptional circumstances warranting such appointment.

Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 1982).

AFFIRMED; request for appointed counsel DENIED.