United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-11168 

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Yusufu Danmola,

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-222-1 

______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

After being convicted by a jury of being a felon illegally in possession 

of a firearm, Defendant-Appellant Yusufu Danmola wassentenced in 2017 to 

a 115-month term of imprisonment. As permitted by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), Danmola filed a compassionate release motion, which the 

district court denied. Danmola then filed a motion for reconsideration which

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 21, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-11168 Document: 38-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2024
No. 23-11168

2

the district court treated as a second compassionate release motion and 

denied relief based on its assessment of the merits of the motion and the 

sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Danmola now appeals the denial of 

his second compassionate release motion. Our review is for abuse of 

discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

Danmola contends that his guidelines range was determined in 

violation of the Sixth Amendment because the enhancement of his sentence 

was based on facts determined by the district court rather than on facts found 

by the jury or that he admitted. He asserts that the constitutional error in 

determining his offense level provides an extraordinary and compelling 

reason to grant a reduction in his sentence. As authority for his Sixth 

Amendment claim, Danmola relies mainly on United States v. Booker, 543 

U.S. 220 (2005). However, his claim amounts to a challenge to the legality or 

duration of his sentence, which is not permitted through compassionate 

release. See United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). 

Danmola is also incorrect in asserting that a Sixth Amendment violation 

occurred with respect to the enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of 

justice based on perjured trial testimony.1 See United States v. Williams, 517 

F.3d 801, 808 (5th Cir. 2008). 

Danmola also contends that the § 3553(a) factors support a sentence 

reduction. However, his argument regarding application of the § 3553(a) 

factors is based on the faulty premise that his guidelines range was incorrectly 

determined based on a Sixth Amendment violation. He fails to show that the 

_____________________

1 In addition to the enhancement for obstruction of justice, Danmola also complains 

that enhancements for possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number and for 

possessing a firearm in connection with another felony offense were imposed in violation 

of the Sixth Amendment. Although his contentions as to those enhancements would not 

alter the outcome, they will not be addressed because he raises them for the first time on 

appeal. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021).

Case: 23-11168 Document: 38-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2024
No. 23-11168

3

district court abused its discretion in denying his motion, given its assessment 

of the § 3553(a) factors. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-11168 Document: 38-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2024