Case: 22-10663 Document: 00516556311 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 22-10663 Summary Calendar FILED November 23, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Joe Lewis Finley, Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:03-CR-18-1

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Joe Lewis Finley, federal prisoner # 30231-177, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. The district court stated that it had reviewed Finley’s arguments and denied the motion after finding that he had failed to demonstrate that extraordinary and

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 22-10663 Document: 00516556311 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2022

No. 22-10663

compelling circumstances warranted relief and after considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Finley contends that the district court’s order failed to adequately consider or discuss his extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release or the applicability of the § 3553(a) factors.

We review the denial of Finley’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). In this case, the court adequately considered Finley’s arguments and concluded that consideration of the § 3553(a) factors did not weigh in favor of relief; the record sufficiently supports the denial. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018).

We need not consider Finley’s contention that the district court erred in finding that he failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief because the district court did not abuse its discretion in its alternative holding that relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors.

See United States v. Ward, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693. The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.