UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

BRITT JARRIEL HAMMONS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 22-6044 

(D.C. No. 5:04-CR-00172-F-1) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

 Britt Hammons appeals the district court’s denial in part and dismissal in part 

of his motion for sentence reduction and compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

 In 2004, Hammons pleaded guilty to one count of being a felon in possession 

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Because he qualified as an armed 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially help determine this appeal. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, 

except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It 

may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

August 25, 2022

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 1
2 

career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), he was given a fifteen-year mandatory 

minimum sentence to be served consecutively to sentences he was serving for 

unrelated state convictions. He began serving his federal sentence in 2013. 

 In February 2022, Hammons moved for a sentence reduction equal to the rest 

of his sentence. As extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, Hammons cited 

the COVID-19 pandemic, his medical conditions, his housing conditions, and the 

need to care for his ailing mother. 

The district court dismissed Hammons’s motion for lack of exhaustion as to 

his request for a sentence reduction based on his mother’s health.1

 But finding that he 

had otherwise exhausted his claim, the district court moved to the merits of the 

motion. The court recognized Hammons’s “medical conditions in combination with 

the ongoing pandemic (including the transmission of the omicron variant) and his 

participation in rehabilitative programs.” Prelim. R. at 18. But it still concluded that 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against reducing his sentence given (1) the 

seriousness of Hammons’s offense, (2) his lengthy criminal history, (3) his attempt to 

escape from imprisonment, and (4) his many infractions while incarcerated. So the 

court denied his motion for sentence reduction. Hammons timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

We review a district court’s order denying a § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse 

of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). 

1

 Hammons does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 2
3 

Relevant here, the weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is committed to the discretion of 

the district court. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 949 (10th Cir. 2021). So we will 

not reverse absent “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear 

error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the 

circumstances.” Id. (citation omitted). 

In reviewing a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), a district court must 

(1) “find whether extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant a sentence 

reduction,” (2) find whether a sentence “reduction is consistent with applicable 

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission,” and (3) “consider any 

applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine whether, in its discretion, the reduction 

authorized by steps one and two is warranted in whole or in part under the particular 

circumstances of the case.” United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 

2021) (brackets and internal quotations omitted).2

 If a defendant’s motion fails any of 

these steps, the district court may deny the motion without addressing the others. See 

United States v. McGee, 992 F.3d 1035, 1043 (10th Cir. 2021). 

2

 The § 3553(a) factors are: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense 

and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for the sentence 

imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense”; (3) “the kinds of sentences 

available”; (4) “the kind[] of sentence and the sentencing range established for” the 

offense at the time of sentencing; (5) “any pertinent policy statement” in effect at the 

time of the defendant’s sentencing; (6) “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence 

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 

similar conduct”; and (7) “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the 

offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)–(7). 

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 3
4 

 Liberally construing Hammons’s Opening Brief,3

 he seems to argue that the 

district court disregarded that he “has completed countless evidence-based recidivism 

reduction programs” and that he “has indeed changed for the good.” Op. Br. at 4 

(cleaned up). We interpret this as a challenge to the district court’s § 3553(a) 

analysis. 

The problem for Hammons is that the district court did acknowledge 

Hammons’s participation in rehabilitative programs. See Prelim. R. at 18 

(“[Hammons’s] participation in rehabilitative programs [is] acknowledged[.]”). 

Moreover, our review of the court’s § 3553(a) analysis does not leave us with a firm 

conviction that the court clearly erred in judgment or exceeded the bounds of 

permissible choice given the circumstances. Hald, 8 F.4th at 949. So we find no 

abuse of discretion in the court’s § 3553(a) analysis. As a result, we need not address 

Hammons’s argument that the district court erred by not following “the facts and 

statements made by the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].” Op. Br. at 3. 

 Hammons also argues that the district court failed to address an argument in 

his reply brief because the court erroneously denied his compassionate-release 

motion before he filed his reply brief. Even assuming that the brief was timely filed4

3

 Because Hammons is proceeding pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, 

but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 

2013). 

4

 His reply brief was post-marked approximately three weeks after the 

government filed its response to his motion, and one week after the district court 

issued its order denying his motion. 

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 4
5 

and that Hammons had a right to file a reply brief—both of which we greatly doubt 

after reviewing the Western District of Oklahoma’s Local Rules—and even if the 

district court issued its order prematurely, this argument is meritless. 

Hammons’s supposedly missed argument pertains to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022).5

 Hammons contends 

that if he were sentenced post-Wooden he “wouldn’t have received 180 months.” Op. 

Br. at 3. So in his view, it is only fair that his sentence be reduced to the sentence he 

would allegedly receive today: 120 months’ imprisonment. Id. at 4. Putting aside the 

dubious validity of Hammons’s Wooden argument, Hammons did not cite or discuss 

Wooden in his reply brief or at any time prior to appeal. And we need not consider 

arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Valdez v. Squier, 676 F.3d 935, 950 

(10th Cir. 2012). 

CONCLUSION

 For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Hammons’s motion for sentence reduction and compassionate 

5

 In Wooden, the Supreme Court provided guidance on how to determine 

whether offenses occurred on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act. 142 S. Ct. at 1070–71. 

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 5
6 

release. Thus, we affirm. We grant Hammons’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Gregory A. Phillips 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 22-6044 Document: 010110730065 Date Filed: 08/25/2022 Page: 6