Case: 24-30574 Document: 49-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 24-30574 FILED April 28, 2025 Summary Calendar ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Rodney Bolton, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CR-166-5 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:* Rodney Bolton, federal prisoner # 31086-034, appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. Renewing claims raised in the district court, Bolton argues that he has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because (i) he would receive a lower sentence if he was sentenced today due to _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 24-30574 Document: 49-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2025

No. 24-30574

non-retroactive changes in the law; and (ii) he satisfies the criteria under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(6), p.s. (2023) for having an “unusually long sentence.” He additionally contends that a sentence reduction is in order because he has been rehabilitated, the community is willing to accept him back into society, and he has a low risk of recidivism.

As a preliminary matter, we do not reach Bolton’s argument that a sentence reduction is warranted insofar as there is a discrepancy between his life sentence and his codefendant’s 310-month sentence because he raises that argument for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Thompson, 984 F.3d 431, 432 n.1 (5th Cir. 2021). Otherwise, to the extent that Bolton’s arguments challenge the district court’s assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, they amount to no more than a disagreement with the district court’s balancing of these factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief based on the balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, we need not consider Bolton’s arguments regarding extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

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.