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 dist rict 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 appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially help determ ine 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 This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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: 12 career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), he was given a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence to be served consecutiv ely to sentences he was serving for unrelated state convictions . He began serving his fe deral sentence in 2013. In February 2022, Hammons moved for a sentence reduction equal to the rest of his sentence. As extraordinary and comp elling reasons for release, Hammons cited the COVID-19 pandemic, his medical c onditions, 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 cl aim, the district court m oved to the merits of the motion. The court recognized Hammons’s “m edical conditions in combination with the ongoing pandemic (including the transm ission of the omicr on variant) and his participation in rehabilitative programs.” Pre lim. R. at 18. But it still concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed ag ainst reducing his sentence given (1) the seriousness of Hammons’s offe nse, (2) his lengthy criminal history, (3) his attempt to escape from imprisonment, and (4) his many infractions while in carcerated. 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: 23 Relevant here, the weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is co mmitted to the discretion of the district court. United States v. Hald , 8 F.4th 932, 949 (10t h Cir. 2021). So we will not reverse absent “a defin ite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bou nds 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 “re duction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Senten cing 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 circ umstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; (2) “the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of th e 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 pe rtinent policy statement” in effect at the time of the defendant’s sentencing; (6) “t he need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct”; and (7) “the need to pr ovide 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: 34 Liberally construing Ha mmons’s Opening Brief, 3 he seems to argue that the district court disregarded th at he “has completed countle ss evidence-based recidivism reduction programs” and that he “has indeed changed fo r the good.” Op. Br. at 4 (cleaned up). We interpret this as a challenge to th e 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 rehabilita tive 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 cour t’s § 3553(a) analysis. As a result, we need not address Hammons’s argument that the district c ourt erred by not following “the facts and statements made by the [Cente rs for Disease Control and Pr evention].” Op. Br. at 3. Hammons also argues that the district court failed to address an argument in his reply brief because th e court erroneously denied his compassionate-release motion before he filed his reply brief. Ev en assuming that the brief was timely filed 4

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 a pproximately 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: 45 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 prem aturely, 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 receiv ed 180 months.” Op. Br. at 3. So in his view, it is only fair th at his sentence be reduc ed to the sentence he would allegedly receive toda y: 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 prio r to appeal. And we need not consider arguments raised for th e 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 re duction and comp assionate

5 In Wooden , the Supreme Court provided guidance on how to determine whether offenses occurred on separate occa sions 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: 56 release. Thus, we affirm. We grant Hammo ns’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