Court Opinion

ID: 9894158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 18:00:58.995773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:48.747764
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50099         Document: 00516950201             Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/31/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 23-50099
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                  October 31, 2023
                                     Summary Calendar
                                     ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                           Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Ochuko Sylvester Eruotor,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:16-CR-347-3
                      ______________________________

   Before Willett, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ochuko Sylvester Eruotor, federal prisoner #98555-380, appeals the
   denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
   § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He is serving a 168-month sentence for conspiracy to
   commit money laundering. On appeal, Eruotor argues that the district
   court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was deficient because

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-50099        Document: 00516950201          Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/31/2023

                                      No. 23-50099

   it failed to consider (1) the disparity between Eruotor’s sentence and those
   of his codefendants and (2) Eruotor’s rehabilitation efforts in prison. With
   the benefit of liberal construction, he also argues that the district court failed
   to adequately explain its reason for denying his motion.
             We review a district court’s order denying compassionate release for
   abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
   2020). The district court’s order demonstrates that it adequately considered
   and rejected Eruotor’s arguments. See Concepcion v. United States, 142 S. Ct.
   2389, 2405 (2022); United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 188 (5th Cir.
   2023); United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 673 (5th Cir. 2009). The district
   court stated that it conducted a complete review of the motion on the merits
   and concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief.
   Eruotor “may disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a)
   factors, [but] that is not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d
   at 694.
             We also reject Eruotor’s attempt to challenge the district court’s
   imposition of the § 3B1.1(a) sentencing enhancement for his role as a “leader
   or organizer” of the conspiracy. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Eruotor “cannot use
   § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence.” Escajeda,
   58 F.4th at 187.
             Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that
   relief was unwarranted under § 3553(a), we need not consider Eruotor’s
   argument that the district court erred in finding that Eruotor failed to show
   extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief. See United States v.
   Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360–61 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
             Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                            2