United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-40779 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Cyrus Gharib, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:14-CR-53-1 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

Cyrus Gharib, federal prisoner # 27652-177, appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). He argues that he has shown extraordinary and compelling 

reasons that warrant compassionate release due to him no longer being 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

May 18, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-40779 Document: 00516323513 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
No. 21-40779 

2 

subject to the career offender enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. He also 

argues that the district court violated his due process rights by issuing its 

ruling before considering his reply to the Government’s supplemental 

response, as well as letters submitted on his behalf in support of his character 

and postsentencing rehabilitation. 

After reviewing the facts surrounding Gharib’s offense of conviction 

and extensive criminal history, the district court determined that the nature 

and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of Gharib, 

the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote respect for the law, the 

need to provide just punishment, the need for adequate deterrence, and the 

need to protect the public from further crimes of Gharib outweighed granting 

relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). Gharib’s failure to challenge these 

findings defeats his claim. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 

(5th Cir. 2020); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); 

Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987). As such, we need not consider his contention that extraordinary and 

compelling reasons justify relief. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-

62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. 

Further, any error in the district court’s issuance of its ruling prior to 

considering Gharib’s reply to the Government’s supplemental response 

would be harmless given that the district court indicated it would still deny 

relief based on the § 3553(a) factors even if Gharib was no longer subject to 

the career offender enhancement. See United States v. Mueller, 168 F.3d 186, 

189 (5th Cir. 1999). Lastly, Gharib does not explain why the letters of support 

could not have been submitted at the time he filed his compassionate release 

motion or how the additional evidence would have affected the district 

court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant relief. See Pepper 

v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 491-92; Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25. 

Case: 21-40779 Document: 00516323513 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2022
No. 21-40779 

3 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Gharib’s incorporated request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED

as unnecessary. 

Case: 21-40779 Document: 00516323513 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/18/2022