UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

______________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. RICKY DALE ADMIRE, Defe ndant - Appellant. No. 22-5039 (D.C. No. 4:97- CR-00171-GKF-4) (N.D. Okla.)

______________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

______________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , BALDOCK , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

______________________ _________________ Federal courts generally lack authority to modify a sentence. Dillon v. United Stat es, 560 U.S. 817, 819 ( 2010). But an excep tion exists when a defendant shows extraordinary, comp elling justification. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have decided the appeal ba sed 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 does not co nstitute binding pr ecedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgmen t may be cited for its persuasi ve 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 

### December 15, 2022 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 12 The defendant, Mr. Ricky Admire, invoked this ex ception and sought early release. The district court de nied Mr. Admire’s request and he appeals, arguing that the court should have considered the statutory sentencing factors, his rehabilitation and need to help an ailing sister, and relief granted to similarl y situated defendants. We consider this ruling under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Hemmelgarn , 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). Applying this standard, we affirm. To address the motion, the court ha d to decide whether Mr. Admire had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence. United States v. Maumau , 993 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2021). If the court were to find such reasons, it wo uld need to consider the statutory sentencing factors. Id. Following this procedure, the district court concluded that Mr. Admire had not shown extraordinar y and compelling r easons to reduce his sentence. So the court had no need to consider the st atutory sentencing factors. United States v. Hald , 8 F.4th 932, 942–43 (10th Cir. 2021). Though the court didn’t need to consider the statutory sentencing factors, Mr. Admire argu es that the court shoul d have considered his rehabilitation and need to help his sister. In his motion, Mr. Admire urged consideration of his efforts at rehabilitation, stating that he’s not had any disciplinary infractions, had Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 23 experienced remorse for his crimes, and had benefited from treatment for anger management. R. at 135. “Rehabilitation . . . al one shall not be consid ered an ex traordinary and compelling reason” to reduce the sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 994(t). But the court can consider rehabilitation along wi th other factors. United States v. Chen , 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9 th Cir. 2022); see Concepcion v. United States , 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2401 ( 2022) (“The text of the First Step Act does not so much as hint that district courts are prohibited from considering evidence of rehabilita tion . . . .”). The district court did consider Mr. Admire’s efforts at rehabilitation, regarding them as “commendable” but not extrao rdinary or compelling. R. at 208. We thus reject Mr. Admire’s argument that the court had failed to consider his effort s at rehabilitation. The court also considered Mr. Admire ’s need to help his sister. In considering this need, the court co ncluded that disruption of family responsibilities wasn’t ordi narily a viable reason to reduce th e sentence. Id. Mr. Admire again fails to identify an y flaws in the court’s reasoning. So we reject his argument that the court had failed to consider the need to help the sister. Finally, Mr. Admire insi sts that the district co urt failed to consider early release given to similarly situated defe ndants. We disagree. Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 34 In his motion, Mr. Admire argued that his medical conditions resembled those experienced by other defendants who had obtained early release. He gave examples of five case s in the District of South Dakota. In each case, the defendant ha d obtained early release based on hypertension, asthma, thyroid cancer, enlarged prosta te, heart disease, cancer, or obesity. Id. at 133; see United States v. Eck , No. CR 18-50058 -JLV, 2020 WL 7390516 (D.S.D. D ec. 16, 2002); United States v. O’Kelly , No. CR-17- 50073-02-JLV, 2020 WL 7318113 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020); United States v. Gravens , No. CR-13-50101-JLV , 2020 WL 7390514 (D .S.D. Dec. 16, 2020); United States v. Hosek , CR-16-50111-JLV, 2020 7318107 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020); United States v. Magnuson , CR-15-50095-JLV, 2020 WL 7318109 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020). The district court ac knowledged that Mr. Ad mire had ailments including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and spondylosi s. But the court explained that Mr. Admire had recovered from thyroid cancer after obtaining a thyroidectomy and radiation therapy, had a transurethral resection of the prostate, and had treatment for hyper tension. These treatments led prison authorities to classify Mr. Admire’s condition as “healthy or simple chro nic care.” R. at 170. Given the tr eatments and classification, the district court concluded that Mr. Admire’s conditions didn’t create extraordinary, compelli ng reasons to redu ce his sentence. Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 45 The court acknowledged that Mr. Admire had been infected twice with Covid. But the court pointed out that (1) he’d recovered both times, (2) he’d been vaccinate d twice for Covid, and (3) the prison didn’t currently have any inmates diagnose d with Covid. Mr. Admire doesn’t point to any flaws in the court’s reasoning. See United States v. Hald , 8 F.4th 932, 939 n.5 (1 0th Cir. 2021) (“[L ]ike access to vaccination, prior infection and recovery fr om COVID-19 would pres umably weigh against a finding of extraord inary and compelli ng reasons.”). We thus reject Mr. Admire’s ch allenges based on a failure to consider the statutory sentencing fact ors, rehabilitative efforts, need to care for his sister, and early release gi ven to similarly situated defendants. Affirmed. 1 Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

1 Though we affirm the denial of a sentence redu ction, we grant Mr. Admire’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 5