United States v. Howard

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 26-903 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:13-cr-00186-GMN-VCF-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

ABDUL HOWARD, AKA Lesley Long,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Abdul Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his third motion for a sentence reduction 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).

Howard argues that the district court erred by failing to address his arguments. As the district court explained, however, it had previously rejected those arguments. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Howard had failed to identify any change in circumstances warranting relief. Neither United States v. Edling, 895 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2018), nor any other change in sentencing law Howard cites, affects his mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c). Moreover, Howard did not raise any new arguments concerning his medical conditions establishing that he is incapable of caring for himself in prison or that his prison is incapable of adequately providing him with medical care. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1).

AFFIRMED.

2 26-903