Case: 23-60231 Document: 00516925906 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-60231 FILED Summary Calendar October 10, 2023 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Roosevelt Walker, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:03-CR-30-3 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Roosevelt Walker, federal prisoner #23120-009, appeals the denial of his motion for compassionate release per 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He contends that the district court’s consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was deficient because it relied in part on an earlier opinion denying relief and did not discuss the mitigating factors he cited. In addition, Walker maintains that he presented extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant- _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 23-60231 Document: 00516925906 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2023

No. 23-60231

ing release and that the court improperly relied on an earlier denial of relief that included a flawed analysis in light of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021), and failed to address his assertions that he was required to act as a caretaker for his parents.

The record reflects that the district court adequately considered Wal- ker’s arguments in concluding that relief was not warranted. See Chavez- Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Walker has not shown that the court abused its discretion in concluding that the § 3553(a) factors weighed against granting early release. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the district court’s independent § 3553(a) analysis supports the denial, it is unnecessary to consider Walker’s contentions regarding whether he showed extraordinary and compelling rea- sons warranting relief. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 (5th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.