Court Opinion

ID: 9965067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 17:01:34.301413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.798448
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-917
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:98-cr-00114-KJM-AC-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
D'ANGELO DOMINICO DAVIS, AKA
Deangelo Domingo Davis,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      D’Angelo Dominico Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his third motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for

      *
             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).
abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021),

we affirm.

      Davis does not dispute the government’s assertion that his appeal is

untimely. Even if the appeal were timely, however, Davis has not shown any error

in the district court’s conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors—

including the nature of Davis’s offense and his violent criminal history, prison

disciplinary record, inadequate release plan, and continued danger to the

community—did not support compassionate release. As the district court

explained, none of the circumstances bearing on compassionate release had

changed since the court’s previous denials, other than Davis’s new prison

disciplinary infractions. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion by the

district court. See Keller, 2 F.4th 1284.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                23-917