United States v. Dailey

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 26, 2024
• Docket: 24-4110
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4110 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:22-cr-00022-BMM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN BRENDAN DAILEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 17, 2024**

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

John Brendan Dailey appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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). Dailey contends that the district court abused its discretion in concluding

that his medical conditions and family circumstances were not extraordinary and

compelling reasons for relief. However, the record reflects that the court fully

considered each of Dailey’s arguments and reasonably concluded that, even in

combination, his circumstances did not rise to the level of extraordinary and

compelling under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The court did not abuse its discretion. 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 without support

in the record).

Dailey also contends that the district court erred by failing to consider or

address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. This argument fails because

where, as here, a district court concludes that a defendant does not have

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, it need not reach the § 3553

factors. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A]

district court that properly denies compassionate release need not evaluate each

step.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4110