UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. SHAWN P. WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 20-1453 (D.C. No. 1:00-CR -00348-LTB-1) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , BALDOCK , and KELLY , Circuit Judges. **

________________ _________________ Defendant-Appellant was convicted of seven counts of mailing threatening communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7876. Before Defendant began serving the 78-month sentence imposed by the distri ct court, Defendant filed a motion for compassionate release. De fendant requested release ba sed on being high-risk for COVID related complications. The district court denied the motion. Although the district court determined Defendant presen ted an extraordinary and compelling reason

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, a nd collateral estoppel. It ma y be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

** After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 18, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court2 for release, it concluded that the § 3553(a) factors do not support a sentence modification. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This app eal followed. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. A district court may grant a motion for compassion ate release when the court finds: (1) extraordinary and compelling reas ons warrant a sentence reduction; (2) such a reduction is consistent with the applicable policy statements issu ed by the Sentencing Commission; and (3) the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) support early release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); United States v. McGee , 992 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th Cir. 2021). If any one of thes e prerequisites is lacking, th e district court may deny the motion without addressing the other factors. Id. at 1043. We review the district court’s decisi on to deny compassiona te release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams , 2021 WL 1148456, at * 2 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2021) (unpublished). Under such standard, we wi ll uphold the district court’s ruling unless it relied on an in correct conclusion of law or clearly erroneous finding of fact. United States v. Pinson , 835 F. App’x 390, 394 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). Defendant has not pointed us to any error of law or fact in the district court’s order. Defendant’s sole argument is that “[t]he district co urt unreasonably balanced the § 3553(a) factors in this particular case.” But it is not our role to “reweigh the factors and come to a different conclusion than the district court,” and “disagreement with how the district court balanced § 3553(a) factors is insufficient to es tablish an abuse of discretion.” Williams , 2021 WL 1148456, at *3.3 Because the district court did not rely on a faulty pr emise of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact, we discern no reversible error. Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the di strict court’s order denyi ng Defendant’s motion for compassionate release.

Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge