United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-60060

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Oladimeji Seun Ayelotan, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:14-CR-33-1

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Stewart and Willett, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Oladimeji Seun Ayelotan, federal prisoner # 18371-043, has appealed 

the district court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the decision for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th Cir. 2021).

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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60060 Document: 00516698384 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-60060

2

Ayelotan asserts that the district court wrongly found that the threat 

of COVID-19 is not an extraordinary and compelling reason for granting his 

motion for compassionate release. However, his general fear of contracting 

COVID-19, including his apprehension about new variants and the efficacy 

of vaccines, does not automatically entitle him to release. See United States 

v. Rodriguez, 27 F.4th 1097, 1100 (5th Cir. 2022); United States v. Thompson, 

984 F.3d 431, 433 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2688 (2021). He has not 

shown that he is at increased or specific risk of being infected with COVID19, is unable to guard properly against infection while incarcerated, or has any 

underlying health issues that may merit compassionate release in light of the 

spread of COVID-19. See Rodriguez, 27 F.4th at 1100; Thompson, 984 F.3d at

433-35. The district court independently evaluated whether Ayelotan raised 

extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting his early release, and he has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, factually or legally, 

by finding that the threat of COVID-19 did not warrant relief. See Rodriguez, 

27 F.4th at 1100-01; Thompson, 984 F.3d at 433-35.

He further argues that the district court erred in its alternative and 

independent finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and his 

specific circumstances did not warrant relief. He alleges that his sentence is 

excessive because it is no longer necessary to protect the public from further 

crimes by him, the district court incorrectly found that his sentence did not 

cause unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the district court did not 

properly consider his rehabilitation and other factors that indicated that he 

would not commit another offense if he were released early. Also, Ayelotan

generally contends that the § 3553(a) factors support an early release.

The record supports that the district court judge, who also presided 

over Ayelotan’s trial and sentencing hearing, reviewed the parties’ evidence 

and arguments and determined that particular § 3553(a) sentencing factors—

including, inter alia, the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the history 

Case: 22-60060 Document: 00516698384 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2023
No. 22-60060

3

of Ayelotan, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the 

crimes, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public—weighed against

granting relief. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965, 1967 

(2018). The district court found that the sentence imposed accounted for the 

§ 3553(a) factors and particularly concluded that there were no unwarranted 

sentence disparities. We must defer to the district court’s consideration of 

the § 3553(a) factors, and Ayelotan’s disagreement with the district court’s 

balancing of the factors does not establish an abuse of discretion. See United 

States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020).

Finally, Ayelotan contends that the district court wrongly denied his 

motion based on his supposed dangerousness to the community. He asserts 

that this factor is set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, p.s., which is not 

determinative of the criteria for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A). The record 

belies his assertion. The district court did not apply § 1B1.13 and evaluate 

whether Ayelotan was a danger to the safety of another person or the 

community in deciding whether his motion should be granted. Instead, the 

district court determined whether an early release would comply with the 

§ 3553(a) factors, including, inter alia, the need for the sentence imposed to 

protect the public from further crimes by him. See § 3553(a)(2)(C); United 

States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United 

States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 22-60060 Document: 00516698384 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2023