UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_______________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

RICKY DALE ADMIRE, 

 Defendant - 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 States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010). But an exception exists when a 

defendant shows extraordinary, compelling justification. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). 

* 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 does not constitute 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 

December 15, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 1
2 

The defendant, Mr. Ricky Admire, invoked this exception and sought 

early release. The district court denied 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 similarly 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 had 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 would need to consider the statutory 

sentencing factors. Id. 

Following this procedure, the district court concluded that 

Mr. Admire had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce 

his sentence. So the court had no need to consider the statutory 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 argues that the court should 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: 2
3 

experienced remorse for his crimes, and had benefited from treatment for 

anger management. R. at 135. 

“Rehabilitation . . . alone shall not be considered an extraordinary 

and compelling reason” to reduce the sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 994(t). But the 

court can consider rehabilitation along with other factors. United States v. 

Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th 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 rehabilitation . . . .”). 

The district court did consider Mr. Admire’s efforts at rehabilitation, 

regarding them as “commendable” but not extraordinary or compelling. R. 

at 208. We thus reject Mr. Admire’s argument that the court had failed to 

consider his efforts at rehabilitation. 

The court also considered Mr. Admire’s need to help his sister. In 

considering this need, the court concluded that disruption of family 

responsibilities wasn’t ordinarily a viable reason to reduce the sentence. 

Id. Mr. Admire again fails to identify any 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 insists that the district court failed to consider 

early release given to similarly situated defendants. We disagree. 

Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 3
4 

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 cases in the District of South Dakota. In 

each case, the defendant had obtained early release based on hypertension, 

asthma, thyroid cancer, enlarged prostate, heart disease, cancer, or obesity. 

Id. at 133; see United States v. Eck, No. CR 18-50058-JLV, 2020 WL 

7390516 (D.S.D. Dec. 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 acknowledged that Mr. Admire had ailments 

including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and spondylosis. 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 hypertension. These 

treatments led prison authorities to classify Mr. Admire’s condition as 

“healthy or simple chronic care.” R. at 170. Given the treatments and 

classification, the district court concluded that Mr. Admire’s conditions 

didn’t create extraordinary, compelling reasons to reduce his sentence. 

Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 4
5 

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 vaccinated twice for Covid, and (3) the prison didn’t 

currently have any inmates diagnosed 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 (10th Cir. 2021) (“[L]ike access to vaccination, prior 

infection and recovery from COVID-19 would presumably weigh against a 

finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.”). 

We thus reject Mr. Admire’s challenges based on a failure to 

consider the statutory sentencing factors, rehabilitative efforts, need to 

care for his sister, and early release given to similarly situated defendants. 

Affirmed.1

Entered for the Court 

Robert E. Bacharach 

Circuit Judge 

1

 Though we affirm the denial of a sentence reduction, 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