Michael Collier, federal prisoner # 57539-019, has appealed the district courts order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for compassionate release. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Collier must show that the district court “base[d] its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although the district court erred in believing that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s. was binding, see United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 392-94 (5th Cir. 2021), Collier has not asserted that question as an issue on appeal. When an appellant fails to identify any error in the district courts analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed that issue. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), arguments must be briefed in order to be preserved, Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that Collier would have been granted relief but for the district courts mistaken belief that it was bound by the policy statement. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 434-35 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, No. 20-7832, ––– U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2021 WL 2044647 (U.S. May 24, 2021). The district courts order is AFFIRMED. Colliers motion for release pending appeal is DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.