N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M AUR IC E LER OM E SM ITH,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 21-50120

D.C . Nos. 3:11-c r-00471-B EN-1 3:11-c r-00471-B EN
M EM O R ANDUM *
Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

June 16, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd NAVAR

R O, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED JUL 7 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Gloria

M . Nava rro, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne v a da , sitting by de signa tion.De fe nda nt M a uric e Le rom e Sm ith (Sm ith) se e ks re vie w of the distric t
c ourt’ s de c ision de ny ing Sm ith’ s m otion for c om pa ssiona te re le a s e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(1)(A). Sm ith a rgue s tha t de nia l of his m otion should be re ve rse d
and re m ande d be c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s orde r and the unde rly ing re c o rd do not
a llow for m e aningful a

ppe lla t e re vie w of the c ourt’ s de c ision. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. W e “ re vie w de novo whe the r the distric t c o urt provide d a

n a de quat e sta te m e nt of re a sons for the se nte nc e it im pose d.” U

n ite d State

s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita tion om itte d). W e re vie w de c isions unde r § 3582(c )(1) for a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th C i r. 2021). A distric t c ourt a buse s its disc re tion “ if it doe s not a pply the
c orre c t la w or if it re sts its de c ision on a c le a rly e rrone ous finding of ma te ria l fa c t.” Id . (c i tation om itte d). A distric t c o urt’ s de c ision should “ pe rm it m e aningful a

ppe lla te re vie w.” Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ). W hile a c ourt’ s e xpla

na tion is “m ost he lpful” whe n it c om e s “ from the be nc h,” an

“ a d e quate e xpla

n a tion in some c a se s m ay a lso be infe rre d from

the . . . re c ord a s a whole .” Id . Wha t c onstitute s a suffic ie nt e xpla

nation will ne c e s sa

rily va ry de pe nding upon the

c om p le xity of the pa rtic ula r c a se . S e e id
. 2The distric t c ourt’ s e xpla nat ion, whilea d

m itte dly c ursory , is a de quate in light of the

la c k of c om ple xity of this c a se an d the c onte xt provide d by the re c ord
a s a whole , pa

rtic u la rly by the fa c t tha

t the distric t c ourt judge is the sa m e judge who se nte nc e d Sm ith. During the se nte nc ing he aring, the distric t c ourt judge
c onside re d the § 3553(a ) fa c tors, a nd provide d re a sone d c o nc lusions for im posing the s e nte n c e . W e a l so note that Sm ith re c e ive d a le ngthy 360-m onth se nte n c e for
se rious c rim e s, a

nd ha s only

se rve d a pproxim a te ly

one -third of these nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . K e lle r , 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th C ir. 2021) (c re diting the distric t
c ourt’ s de te rm ination tha

t de fe n da nt ha d “ 55 m onths re m a ining on a le ngthy 137-m onth se nte nc e ” ) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). The distric t c o urt’ s orde r c onve y e d c onc e rn with Sm ith’ s se rious offe nse s, a s we ll a s the le ngth of his
se nte nc e , by

re c ounting those

fa c ts in its order de ny ing c om pa ssiona te re le a se , c onc luding tha

t Sm ith c ontinue d to “pose a signific ant da

nge r to the c om

m unity .” B ut the orde r fa ile d to e xplic itly a ddre ss the ba sis for the m otion, Sm ith’ s fe ar of
c ontra c ting C OVID. W e c a ution thedistric t c ourt tha t the c ursory e xpla

nation in this c a se c om e s pe rilously c lose to be ing ina de quate . For future m otions for c om pa ssiona te
re le a se , the c ourt should provide a m ore fulsom e e xpla

nation for its de c ision. A de fe nda n t se e king re -se nte nc ing de se rve s a s m uc h. In this c a s e , no re m a n d is
3re quire d. In a c lose r c a se , the distric t c ourt’ s e xpla nation would like ly

not pa ss
m uste r. AFFIRM E D.

4