USA v. Brian James Murphy

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-14195
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRIAN JAMES MURPHY,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-00285-KD-C-1
____________________
Before J ORDAN, NEWSOM , and G RANT, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 20-14195 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 20-14195
PER CURIAM:
Brian James Murphy pleaded guilty to two counts of child
pornography production in 2014. He received a sentence of 262
months in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Six
years later, Murphy thought he saw an opportunity to reduce his
sentence in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. So he submitted a
motion requesting that the court appoint him counsel to help him
file for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. The district
court denied his motion, explaining that “there is no constitutional
or statutory right to counsel” for § 3582 filings.
Murphy timely appealed. He also filed a motion for
compassionate release under § 3582 without the help of a lawyer.
The district court denied that motion too, concluding that Murphy
presented a danger to the community based on his “long history of
sexually abusing children” and his statement in a signed factual
resume that he was not likely to stop his behavior.
Murphy did not appeal the denial of his motion for
compassionate release, so we review only the order denying his
request for counsel. But even when his brief is liberally construed,
Murphy makes no argument on appeal that the district court erred
in denying that motion. He has therefore abandoned his claim.
See, e.g.,
United States v. Grimon, 923 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.
2019).1
1 Murphy instead appears to argue that the district court erred in denying his
motion for compassionate release, despite not having appealed that order. But
USCA11 Case: 20-14195 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

20-14195 Opinion of the Court 3
We AFFIRM the district court’s order.
to the extent that his brief may be construed as a notice of appeal of that order,
it was not timely.
See FED . R. A PP . P. 4(b)(1)(A) (requiring that a notice of
appeal be filed within 14 days of the entry of the judgment being appealed).
USCA11 Case: 20-14195 Date Filed: 06/15/2022 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --