USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 1 of 7

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-10219 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ADEDEJI ADENIRAN, a.k.a. Tony, a.k.a. Aare,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 2 of 7

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10219

D.C. Docket No. 4:05-cr-00024-RH-MAF-1 ____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Adedeji Adeniran, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap- peals the district court’s orders denying his motions seeking com- passionate release. The government has moved for summary affir- mance and to stay the briefing schedule. We grant the govern- ment’s motion for summary affirmance. I. Adeniran participated in a conspiracy that defrauded feder- ally insured credit unions and banks. In 2020, he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and two counts of bank fraud. The district court sentenced him to 75 months’ imprison- ment. In explaining the basis for the sentence, the district court dis- cussed several of the sentencing factors set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), 1 including the nature and circumstances of the offense

1 Under § 3553(a), the district court is required to impose a sentence “suffi- cient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” of the stat- ute. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to: reflect the seri- ousness of the offense; promote respect for the law; provide just punishment; deter criminal conduct; protect the public from the defendant’s future criminal conduct; and effectively provide the defendant with educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment. Id. § 3553(a)(2). The court must also consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the his- tory and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences available, the USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 3 of 7

22-10219 Opinion of the Court 3

and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. The dis- trict court expressly considered Adeniran’s history and characteris- tics, including that this was his first offense. The court also stated that it had “taken . . . into account” Adeniran’s underlying health conditions and the risks that he faced if he contracted COVID-19 while incarcerated. Doc. 289 at 27. 2 Adeniran appealed, challenging his sentence as substantively unreasonable. We affirmed, explaining that under our abuse of dis- cretion standard we do not “second guess the weight (or lack thereof) that the [sentencing] judge accorded to a given factor un- der § 3553(a), as long as the sentence ultimately imposed is reason- able in light of all the circumstances presented.” United States v. Adeniran, No. 21-10609, 2022 WL 443819, at *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 14, 2022) (unpublished) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Approximately ninth months after the district court imposed the sentence and while his direct appeal was pending, Adeniran, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for compassionate release in the district court. He requested a sentence reduction for several rea- sons, including because he suffered from underlying health condi- tions that put him at a greater risk of developing severe health

applicable guidelines range, the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, and the need to provide restitution to victims. Id. § 3553(a)(1), (3)-(7). 2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries. USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 4 of 7

4 Opinion of the Court 22-10219

consequences if he contracted COVID-19. The district court denied the motion. The court assumed that Adeniran was eligible for a sentence reduction but declined to exercise its discretion because “a reduced sentence would not be sufficient to meet the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.” Doc. 298 at 5. “If a new sentencing were con- ducted today,” the court stated, it would impose the same sentence “for the same reasons set out on the record of the original sentenc- ing hearing, even considering all the information Mr. Adeniran has now submitted.” Id. After the district court denied Adeniran’s motion, he moved for reconsideration, arguing that the § 3553(a) factors supported a sentence reduction. The district court denied the motion. This is Adeniran’s appeal. After Adeniran filed his appellant’s brief, the government filed a motion for summary affirmance. II. Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is- sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat- ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out- come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 5 of 7

22-10219 Opinion of the Court 5

appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 3 We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sen- tence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). United States v. Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1251 (11th Cir. 2021). After eligibility is es- tablished, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a defendant’s request for a sentence reduction. Id. We liberally construe pro se filings. Jones v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015). III. A district court may grant a motion for a sentence reduction, if, after considering the § 3553(a) factors, it finds that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction” and that “a re- duction is consistent with applicable policy statements” in the Sen- tencing Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have held that the Sentencing Commission’s policy statement governing compas- sionate release defines the universe of extraordinary and compel- ling reasons that may justify a reduced sentence. Bryant, 996 F.3d at 1262; see U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual §1B1.3 (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2018). When denying a sentence reduction based on the § 3553(a) factors, “[a] district court need not exhaustively analyze every factor in its order, but it must provide enough analysis that

3 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 6 of 7

6 Opinion of the Court 22-10219

meaningful appellate review of the factors’ application can take place.” United States v. Cook, 998 F.3d 1180, 1184 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we agree with the government that summary affir- mance is appropriate. There is no substantial question that the dis- trict court acted within its discretion when it concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. Adeniran challenges the district court’s conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a sentence reduction. He argues that the district court should have given greater weight to some factors—such as his history and characteristics—and less weight to others—such as the need to avoid an unwarranted sentencing dis- parity and the nature and circumstances of the offense. But “[t]he weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). We conclude that the district court was well within its discretion when it decided the particular weight to afford to each § 3553(a) factor and determined that a re- duction was not warranted in this case. Adeniran also argues on appeal that he was eligible for relief because he demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for a sentence reduction. But we need not address this issue because the district court’s finding that the § 3553(a) factors did not warrant a sentencing reduction forecloses relief. See United States v. Tinker, 14 F.4th 1234, 1237–38 (11th Cir. 2021). USCA11 Case: 22-10219 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 Page: 7 of 7

22-10219 Opinion of the Court 7

Because there is no substantial question as to the outcome of this appeal, we conclude that summary affirmance is appropri- ate. See Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162. Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED and its motion to stay the briefing schedule is DENIED as moot.