United States v. McMurray

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-7438
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7438 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:12-cr-00360-AB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* KEITH LAWRENCE MCMURRAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Amy M. Baggio, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Keith Lawrence McMurray 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), 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). McMurray contends the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts, failed

to explain why it rejected his arguments, and abused its discretion in concluding

that the danger he poses to the public and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors as a

whole do not support compassionate release. These claims are unavailing. The

court’s factual findings concerning McMurray’s conduct while incarcerated and his

failure to complete treatment are supported by the record. Moreover, the record

reflects that the court understood and considered McMurray’s arguments but did

not find them convincing. Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that a sentence reduction would not be consistent with the § 3553(a)

sentencing factors or the applicable Guidelines’ policy statements. See Keller, 2

F.4th at 1284; United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018)

(district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or

not supported by the record).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7438