United States of America v. Gregory D. Crosby

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GREGORY D. CROSBY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 25-3153
(D.C. No. 5:09-CR-40049-KHV-1)
(D. Kans.)
_______________________________________
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
April 29, 2026
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1

-- 1 of 4 --

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4938343, at *2 (10th Cir. Aug. 3, 2023) (unpublished); United States v.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(unpublished).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
Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2

-- 2 of 4 --

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 liberally construe his appeal brief.
de Silva v. Pitts, 481 F.3d 1279, 1283 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007). But pro se
litigants must follow the same rules of procedure as other litigants. Garrett
v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Under these rules, Mr. Crosby needed to say why he thought the district
court erred. Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th
Cir. 2015) (“The first task of an appellant is to explain to us why the
district court’s decision was wrong.”).
He says that “all appeals have been exhaust[ed].” Appellant’s
Opening Br. at 7. But he doesn’t say how he exhausted the third motion or
1 In the district court, Mr. Crosby submitted documents showing that
he had exhausted administrative remedies before filing his second motion
for reduction of his sentence. See United States v. Crosby, No. 5:09-cr-
40049-KHV-1, Doc. 240 (D. Kan. Aug. 18, 2025). But these documents
address an earlier motion; Mr. Crosby does not argue on appeal that these
documents show exhaustion of his third motion, which is the one we’re
addressing.
Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 3

-- 3 of 4 --

4
why he thinks that the district court erred. 2 So we affirm the denial of Mr.
Crosby’s motion to reduce his sentence. 3
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
2 The district court also reasoned that Mr. Crosby had failed to show
“extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a reduced sentence. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We need not address this reasoning because we
affirm on other grounds.
3 Though we affirm the district court’s ruling, we grant Mr. Crosby’s
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Appellate Case: 25-3153 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 4

-- 4 of 4 --