United States v. Millegan

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 11, 2025
• Docket: 24-7441
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7441 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:19-cr-00528-IM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES W. MILLEGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 9, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Defendant James W. Millegan appeals from the district court’s denial of his

motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821

to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial of Millegan’s

* 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). motion under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hernandez-

Martinez, 933 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2019). As the parties are familiar with the

facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We affirm.

“The district court’s duty to consider the § 3553(a) factors necessarily entails

a duty to provide a sufficient explanation of the sentencing decision to permit

meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th

Cir. 2013). Even if the district court abused its discretion by not adequately

explaining its rejection of Millegan’s arguments, any error was harmless. See

United States v. Cruz-Gramajo, 570 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009). The record

shows the district court considered the parties’ arguments, believed that the

original 51-month sentence was appropriate in light of Millegan’s conduct

(including during the pendency of his case), and found that his individual

circumstances did not show a decreased likelihood of recidivism. See Chavez-

Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 120 (2018).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7441