Case: 24-10095 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2024

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED September 5, 2024 No. 24-10095 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Edwin Viera, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-353-1 ______________________________ Before Jolly, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Edwin Viera, federal prisoner # 59534-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. We review the denial of Viera’s motion for an abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-10095 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2024

No. 24-10095

In his pro se brief, Viera argues that there were extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction in his sentence because the district court, at his original sentencing, imposed “an incorrect statutory penalty” and selected a guidelines sentence that is unjust and unfair. He contends that the sentencing error provides extraordinary and compelling reasons under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(5), p.s., and that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

Because Viera fails to show that the purported error at his sentencing is “similar in gravity” to the considerations listed in § 1B1.13(b)(1)-(4), he has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in determining that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a reduction in his sentence. See § 1B1.13(b)(5). Furthermore, “a prisoner cannot use § 3582(c) to challenge the legality or the duration of his sentence.” United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023).

Viera also argues that the district court erred by failing to consider whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors warrant a sentence reduction. However, given its determination that Viera failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court was not required to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 433-35 (5th Cir. 2021). The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.