Case: 24-10692 Document: 37-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED February 21, 2025 No. 24-10692 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Teresa Onofore Franco, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:19-CR-371-4 ______________________________ Before King, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Teresa Onofore Franco, federal prisoner # 92186-298, appeals the district court’s denial of her motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Franco sought compassionate release based upon family circumstances and post-sentencing rehabilitation.

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

Case: 24-10692 Document: 37-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2025

No. 24-10692

In addition to denying Franco’s motions based on her failure to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons, the district court also denied relief on the basis that a weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not warrant a further reduction to her below- guidelines sentence. Specifically, the district court concluded that reducing Franco’s sentence, of which she had served less than 50 percent, would not adequately reflect the seriousness of her offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, adequately deter criminal conduct, or protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C). Franco’s contention on appeal that she is scheduled to be released on May 15, 2027, is incorrect, as the Bureau of Prison’s website reflects that she has a scheduled release date of January 9, 2030. Further, Franco’s argument that her post-sentencing rehabilitation weighed in favor of a reduction amounts to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which does not warrant reversal. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020).

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693-94; United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022).