Case: 24-60660 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-60660 FILED Summary Calendar August 4, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Shameika Johnson, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:21-CR-32-3 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Ho, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Defendant-Appellant Shameika Johnson, federal prisoner # 40375- 509, appeals the denial of her motion for a reduction in sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), as well as the denial of her motion for reconsideration. We review the district court’s denials of these motions for

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

Case: 24-60660 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2025

No. 24-60660

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Calton, 900 F.3d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 2008).

On appeal, Johnson contends that she is eligible for a sentence reduction under Part A of Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

She further contends that a reduction was warranted to protect the important goal of consistency in the sentencing process and to ensure that her sentence will be consistent with sentences ordered for similarly situated defendants who are sentenced after the effective date of Amendment 821. She also cites her completion of education courses during her incarceration.

In denying Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion and motion to reconsider, the district court stated that it had considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including her history and characteristics and the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense and to protect the public.

See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A), (C). Johnson’s arguments regarding unwarranted sentencing disparities and her post-sentence rehabilitation constitute a mere disagreement with the district court’s analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, which is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, her argument that similarly situated defendants who are sentenced after November 1, 2023, and who receive the benefit of Amendment 821, will receive a lesser sentence is pure conjecture. Cf. United States v. Smith, 595 F.3d 1322, 1323 (5th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the suggestion that a district court must grant a § 3582(c)(2) motion based on an amendment to the Guidelines because failing to do so creates unwarranted sentencing disparities).

On this record, there is no basis for a determination that the district court abused its discretion in denying Johnson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion or her motion to reconsider. See Calton, 900 F.3d at 71; Rabhan, 540 F.3d at 346.

AFFIRMED.