United States v. Bosley

Case: 25-30240 Document: 61-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-30240 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ April 27, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joshua Bosley, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:23-CR-33-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Joshua Bosley, federal prisoner # 46806-510, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He contends that the district court erred by failing to consider whether he had identified an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting relief under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5), p.s. To the extent _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-30240 Document: 61-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2026

No. 25-30240 we need consider his argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court erred by denying him an opportunity to file a reply, see, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021), Bosley does not identify any arguments that he would have raised in a reply or explain how the district court abused its discretion where the court set a deadline for filing a reply and waited more than two weeks after that deadline before denying relief. See Klocke v. Watson, 936 F.3d 240, 243 (5th Cir. 2019).

We review the denial of a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020).

We need not address whether Bosley has cited an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting compassionate release under § 1B1.13(b)(5), p.s., since he fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying relief based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).

The district court determined that Bosley remained a danger to the public despite his chronic kidney disease given both his considerable criminal history and that he committed the crime of conviction while suffering from the disease. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (2)(C). Further, it concluded that a reduction would not reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or deter further criminal conduct. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B). Although it did not expressly address Bosley’s argument in favor of home-confinement, the court made clear that it had considered the parties’ briefs before explaining at length why the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant granting relief, highlighting that it would be “unlikely that [Bosley] could afford the exorbitant costs of his condition” and that he had “not been compliant with medical providers’ instructions.”

The denial of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief is therefore AFFIRMED, and Bosley’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.