Court Opinion

ID: 9946035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 22:00:55.641963+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:23.334428
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 28 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-372
                                                D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00279-JAD-PAL-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

JOSHUA SADAT WASHINGTON,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Nevada
                   Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Joshua Sadat Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying compassionate release

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

      *
             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).
      The district court denied Washington’s motion because he had not addressed

any of the compassionate release factors or identified any grounds for

reconsideration of the court’s prior order. On appeal, Washington contends that he

is entitled to compassionate release in light of the extreme stress that he is

experiencing. This contention does not demonstrate that the district court abused

its discretion in denying Washington’s motion. See United States v. Lopez-Cruz,

730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). Washington’s

reconsideration motion and arguments on appeal fail to identify any basis for

revisiting the district court’s prior order denying compassionate release. See

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993) (discussing when reconsideration is appropriate).

      We do not address in these proceedings Washington’s arguments concerning

appointment of counsel for his 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. In Appeal No. 23-3297

this court will determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to

the district court’s order denying Washington’s § 2255 motion.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                       23-372