United States of America v. Ricky Dale Admire

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_______________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY DALE ADMIRE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 22-5039
(D.C. No. 4:97-CR-00171-GKF-4)
(N.D. Okla.)
_______________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_______________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
_______________________________________
Federal courts generally lack authority to modify a sentence. Dillon
v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 819 (2010). But an exception exists when a
defendant shows extraordinary, compelling justification. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
* Oral argument would not help us decide the appeal, so we have
decided the appeal based on the record and the parties’ briefs. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a)(2)(C); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if
otherwise appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 15, 2022
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 1

-- 1 of 5 --

2
The defendant, Mr. Ricky Admire, invoked this exception and sought
early release. The district court denied Mr. Admire’s request and he
appeals, arguing that the court should have considered the statutory
sentencing factors, his rehabilitation and need to help an ailing sister, and
relief granted to similarly situated defendants. We consider this ruling
under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Hemmelgarn,
15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021). Applying this standard, we affirm.
To address the motion, the court had to decide whether Mr. Admire
had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce his sentence.
United States v. Maumau, 993 F.3d 821, 831 (10th Cir. 2021). If the court
were to find such reasons, it would need to consider the statutory
sentencing factors. Id.
Following this procedure, the district court concluded that
Mr. Admire had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce
his sentence. So the court had no need to consider the statutory sentencing
factors. United States v. Hald, 8 F.4th 932, 942–43 (10th Cir. 2021).
Though the court didn’t need to consider the statutory sentencing
factors, Mr. Admire argues that the court should have considered his
rehabilitation and need to help his sister.
In his motion, Mr. Admire urged consideration of his efforts at
rehabilitation, stating that he’s not had any disciplinary infractions, had
Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 2

-- 2 of 5 --

3
experienced remorse for his crimes, and had benefited from treatment for
anger management. R. at 135.
“Rehabilitation . . . alone shall not be considered an extraordinary
and compelling reason” to reduce the sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 994(t). But the
court can consider rehabilitation along with other factors. United States v.
Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022); see Concepcion v. United
States, 142 S. Ct. 2389, 2401 (2022) (“The text of the First Step Act does
not so much as hint that district courts are prohibited from considering
evidence of rehabilitation . . . .”).
The district court did consider Mr. Admire’s efforts at rehabilitation,
regarding them as “commendable” but not extraordinary or compelling. R.
at 208. We thus reject Mr. Admire’s argument that the court had failed to
consider his efforts at rehabilitation.
The court also considered Mr. Admire’s need to help his sister. In
considering this need, the court concluded that disruption of family
responsibilities wasn’t ordinarily a viable reason to reduce the sentence.
Id. Mr. Admire again fails to identify any flaws in the court’s reasoning.
So we reject his argument that the court had failed to consider the need to
help the sister.
Finally, Mr. Admire insists that the district court failed to consider
early release given to similarly situated defendants. We disagree.
Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 3

-- 3 of 5 --

4
In his motion, Mr. Admire argued that his medical conditions
resembled those experienced by other defendants who had obtained early
release. He gave examples of five cases in the District of South Dakota. In
each case, the defendant had obtained early release based on hypertension,
asthma, thyroid cancer, enlarged prostate, heart disease, cancer, or obesity.
Id. at 133; see United States v. Eck, No. CR 18-50058-JLV, 2020 WL
7390516 (D.S.D. Dec. 16, 2002); United States v. O’Kelly, No. CR-17-
50073-02-JLV, 2020 WL 7318113 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020); United States v.
Gravens, No. CR-13-50101-JLV, 2020 WL 7390514 (D.S.D. Dec. 16,
2020); United States v. Hosek, CR-16-50111-JLV, 2020 7318107 (D.S.D.
Dec. 11, 2020); United States v. Magnuson, CR-15-50095-JLV, 2020 WL
7318109 (D.S.D. Dec. 11, 2020).
The district court acknowledged that Mr. Admire had ailments
including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and spondylosis. But the
court explained that Mr. Admire had recovered from thyroid cancer after
obtaining a thyroidectomy and radiation therapy, had a transurethral
resection of the prostate, and had treatment for hypertension. These
treatments led prison authorities to classify Mr. Admire’s condition as
“healthy or simple chronic care.” R. at 170. Given the treatments and
classification, the district court concluded that Mr. Admire’s conditions
didn’t create extraordinary, compelling reasons to reduce his sentence.
Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 4

-- 4 of 5 --

5
The court acknowledged that Mr. Admire had been infected twice
with Covid. But the court pointed out that (1) he’d recovered both times,
(2) he’d been vaccinated twice for Covid, and (3) the prison didn’t
currently have any inmates diagnosed with Covid. Mr. Admire doesn’t
point to any flaws in the court’s reasoning. See United States v. Hald, 8
F.4th 932, 939 n.5 (10th Cir. 2021) (“[L]ike access to vaccination, prior
infection and recovery from COVID-19 would presumably weigh against a
finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons.”).
We thus reject Mr. Admire’s challenges based on a failure to
consider the statutory sentencing factors, rehabilitative efforts, need to
care for his sister, and early release given to similarly situated defendants.
Affirmed. 1
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1 Though we affirm the denial of a sentence reduction, we grant
Mr. Admire’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Appellate Case: 22-5039 Document: 010110783806 Date Filed: 12/15/2022 Page: 5

-- 5 of 5 --