United States v. Crosby

── United States v. Crosby ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2026 _______________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-3153 (D.C. No. 5:09-CR-40049-KHV-1) GREGORY D. CROSBY, (D. Kans.) Defendant - Appellant. _______________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _______________________________________ Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _______________________________________ Mr. Gregory Crosby was convicted of attempting to rob a bank and conveying false information about a bomb threat. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1038, 2113(a). The district court sentenced Mr. Crosby to 262 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Crosby later filed two motions to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court denied both motions, and * Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).  Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2 we affirmed both rulings. United States v. Crosby, No. 23-3034, 2023 WL 4938343, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (unpublished); United States v. Crosby, No. 24-3018, 2024 WL 2955558, at *1 (10th Cir. June 12, 2024) (unpublished). Mr. Crosby then moved again to reduce his sentence, urging (1) an early release based on his age and rehabilitation and (2) a chance to serve the rest of his sentence in a residential re-entry center. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1). The district court denied this motion in part for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (stating that a defendant may move for a sentence reduction after “fully exhaust[ing] 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”); see also United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1030 (10th Cir. 2021) (“Section 3582(c)(1)(A) requires exhaustion before a court may consider a motion for compassionate release.”). The court also concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to order Mr. Crosby’s transfer to a residential re-entry facility. Mr. Crosby appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion. But he doesn’t adequately challenge the district court’s rulings that 2  Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3 • he didn’t exhaust administrative remedies before filing the third motion to reduce his sentence and • jurisdiction didn’t exist for an order to place him in a residential re-entry facility. 1 Mr. Crosby is pro se, so we li