United States v. Davis

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 1, 2024
• Docket: 23-917
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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