Court Opinion

ID: 9910872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 19:01:00.505604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:55.569152
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10347

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00371-JAM-8

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SHAWN MICHAEL CONLEY,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before:      WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Shawn Michael Conley appeals 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022), 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).
      Conley first contends that the district court erred in its analysis of his

asserted extraordinary and compelling circumstances because it did not sufficiently

consider his arguments and relied on materially incorrect facts. The record

reflects, however, that the district court adequately considered Conley’s

circumstances and arguments for release, both individually and in combination.

Moreover, even if the district court’s statement that Conley failed to accept

responsibility for his offense is at odds with the court’s decision to grant him an

acceptance of responsibility adjustment at the original sentencing, there is

substantial record support for its overall conclusion that Conley’s circumstances

were distinguishable from those of his codefendant.

      The district court also reasonably concluded that, even considering Conley’s

rehabilitation and release plan, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against

release. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). Contrary

to Conley’s arguments, the district court sufficiently explained this decision and

did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the original sentence remained

appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 948-50.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                       22-10347