United States v. Eruotor ( 2023 )

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