Court Opinion

ID: 9380605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 18:00:30.531779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.370266
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10240

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00567-JSW-1

 v.

SHAUN ROBERTS,                                  MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Shaun Roberts appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      The parties dispute whether Roberts exhausted his administrative remedies

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
before filing the instant compassionate release motion. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We need not decide this issue because the district court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that, even if Roberts had met the exhaustion

requirement, he was not entitled to relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th

1278, 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and holding that

administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional). Just three months before Roberts

filed the instant motion, the district court granted an 18-year reduction in Roberts’s

sentence based on the changes to the stacking provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

made by the First Step Act. See United States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th

Cir. 2022) (holding that non-retroactive changes in sentencing law may provide an

extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Contrary to

Roberts’s contention, the district court reasonably concluded that none of the

arguments offered in his subsequent motion provided a basis for a further reduction

in his sentence. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,

implausible, or not supported by the record).

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                      22-10240