Case: 24-10293 Document: 56-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-10293 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 20, 2025 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Bradley J. Harris, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:17-CR-103-1 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Defendant-appellant Bradley J. Harris, federal prisoner # 55436-177, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his 159-month sentence for health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. His motion was based on Part B of Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion based _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-10293 Document: 56-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2025

No. 24-10293

on a determination that Harris was not eligible for a decrease of two offense levels as a zero-point offender because he did not satisfy all the criteria under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a).

Harris received a vulnerable victim adjustment under U.S.S.G.

§ 3A1.1(b)(2), and he is therefore ineligible for an offense level reduction under § 4C1.1(a)(9). On appeal, Harris contends that the vulnerable victim adjustment does not disqualify him from relief and is instead only one factor that the district court could consider in deciding whether to grant relief. His assertion is without merit, as the plain language of § 4C1.1(a) requires that he satisfy all of the criteria listed in that subsection. See U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1(a).

Insofar as Harris requests that we remand the case to correct alleged clerical errors in the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, we decline to do so, without prejudice to his right to seek relief under Rule in the district court. His motion to allow an attachment to his brief is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.