govinfo:USCOURTS-ksd-2_77-cr-20014-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
JAMES DEWAYNE BARNETTE, 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant James Dewayne Barnett’s1 Motion for 
Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 140). The motion is fully briefed, 
and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons provided below, the Court dismisses the 
motion for lack of jurisdiction. 
I. Background 
On July 5, 1977, a jury sitting in the District of Kansas convicted Barnett of kidnapping, 
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201; assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a); and maiming, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 114.2 On August 9, 1977, United States District Judge Earl E. 
O’Connor sentenced Barnett to life imprisonment on the kidnapping count, a 20-year term of 
imprisonment on the assault count, and a 7-year term of imprisonment on the maiming count, 
with each sentence to run concurrently.3 These sentences were ordered to run consecutively to 
 
1 Barnett’s last name is spelled “Barnette” in the case caption and the Superseding Indictment. According 
to Barnett’s compassionate release filings, see Docs. 117, 125, and 140, the Bureau of Prisons’ records, see Docs. 
117-1, 124-1, 128-1, and the Presentence Investigation Report, the correct spelling of his name is “Barnett.” The 
Court therefore uses “Barnett” in this Order. 
2 Doc. 36. 
3 Doc. 45. Although Barnett was 21 years old on the date of conviction, Judge O’Connor found that “he 
would not benefit from handling under the Federal Youth Corrections Act.” Id. 

2 
the 10-year sentence Barnett was then serving for a prior conviction for sodomy and intent to 
commit rape.4 
Less than a decade later, on August 7, 1985, Barnett pleaded guilty in the Western 
District of Oklahoma to assaulting a correctional officer with a deadly weapon at FCI El Reno, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 1114.5 He was sentenced to a 10-year term of imprisonment, 
to run consecutively “to any other sentence imposed.”6 
Barnett is incarcerated at FCI Butner in Butner, North Carolina. He has no projected 
release date. 
On March 8, 2021, Barnett filed a motion requesting compassionate release on the 
ground that the combination of his medical conditions place him at an increased risk for severe 
illness from COVID-19.7 The Court denied that motion, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.8 
Defendant has now filed a second motion for compassionate release, citing his advanced 
age, medical conditions, and rehabilitation. 
II. Legal Standard 
“‘Federal courts are forbidden, as a general matter, to modify a term of imprisonment 
once it has been imposed, but th[at] rule of finality is subject to a few narrow exceptions.’ One 
such exception is contained in § 3582(c)(1).”9 Section 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First 
Step Act of 2018,10 permits a court to reduce a term of imprisonment “upon motion of the 
 
4 Id. 
5 W.D. Okla. Case No. 85-00188. 
6 Id. 
7 Doc. 117. 
8 Docs. 133, 139. 
9 United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 830 (10th Cir. 2021) (alteration in original) (quoting Freeman v. 
United States, 564 U.S. 522, 526 (2011)). 
10 Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. 

3 
defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of 
the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from 
the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier.” 
Before reducing a term of imprisonment, a court must find that (1) “extraordinary and 
compelling reasons warrant” a sentence reduction, (2) such a reduction “is consistent with 
applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and (3) the applicable 
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support such a reduction.11 The court may 
deny a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion “when any of the three prerequisites listed in § 3582(c)(1)(A) is 
lacking and do[es] not need to address the others.”12 If the court grants the motion, however, it 
must address all three steps.13 
III. Discussion 
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s exhaustion requirement is a mandatory claim-processing rule 
that the Government may waive or forfeit.14 But when “properly invoked,” mandatory claim-
processing rules “must be enforced.”15 Here, the Government invokes the statute’s exhaustion 
requirement. To exhaust administrative remedies, “a defendant must file a request with the 
warden of his institution of incarceration.”16 Defendant offers no evidence of exhaustion along 
with his motion, and he did not file a reply responding to the Government’s invocation of the 
 
11 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th Cir. 2021). 
12 United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942 (10th Cir. 2021) (emphasis omitted) (quoting McGee, 992 F.3d at 
1043). 
13 McGee, 992 F.3d at 1043. 
14 United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). 
15 Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 20 (2017); see also United States v. Johnson, 
849 F. App’x 750, 753 (10th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the statute’s exhaustion rule “is mandatory, rather than 
judicially waivable”); United States v. Gieswein, No. 21-6056, 2021 WL 4852420, at *2 n.2 (10th Cir. Oct. 19, 
2021) (“[Section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s] exhaustion requirement, though nonjurisdictional, remains a mandatory claim-
processing rule that the court must enforce when the government invokes it, as it does here.”). 
16 United States v. Gieswein, No. 22-6014, 2022 WL 2841835, at *2 (10th Cir. July 21, 2022). 

4 
exhaustion rule. Because the exhaustion requirement is a mandatory condition that has been 
properly invoked by the Government, the Court must dismiss Defendant’s compassionate release 
motion without prejudice to refiling if and when he exhausts his administrative remedies.17 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant’s Motion for 
Sentence Reduction Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (Doc. 140) is dismissed without 
prejudice. 
IT IS SO ORDERED 
 Dated: May 12, 2026 
 S/ Julie A. Robinson 
JULIE A. ROBINSON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
17 See United States v. Purify, No. 20-5075, 2021 WL 5758294, at *4 n.3 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021) (“Like 
dismissals for lack of jurisdiction, dismissals for failure to exhaust are ordinarily without prejudice.”). 

Passage view · GavelSight