United States v. Norwood

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-5179
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 2 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5179 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 6:14-cr-00122-MC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DARRYL TYRONE NORWOOD, Jr.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 31, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: LEE and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO, District Judge.*** Defendant Darryl Tyrone Norwood, Jr. appeals from the district court’s denial

of a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sought after § 4A1.1 of the

Sentencing Guidelines was amended. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, amend. 821.

* 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). *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

District courts may reduce a sentence “in the case of a defendant who has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C

994(o) . . . after considering the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] 3553(a) to the extent

that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy

statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); see also

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). We review the district court’s

denial of a motion for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 F.4th 961, 964–65 (9th Cir.

2021).

Here, the district court concluded that Norwood was eligible for a sentence

reduction under the Amendment and recalculated the Guidelines range to 135 to 168

months. It then held that that a reduction was not warranted after considering several

specific § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Norwood, No. 6:14-cr-00122-MC, 2024

WL 3784768, at *2 (D. Or. Aug. 13, 2024) (considering “the nature and

circumstances of the offense” and “the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the

seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just

punishment for the offense”). Norwood argues that the district court erred because

it did not consider the Commission’s reasons for amending § 4A1.1. Even assuming

2 24-5179 that this argument was adequately raised to the district court, no binding precedent

requires a district court to consider the Commission’s reasoning when analyzing

whether to grant a sentencing reduction under § 3582(c)(2).1 And Norwood makes

no persuasive argument for imposing such a requirement in this case.

Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

reaching this conclusion.

AFFIRMED.

1 Norwood cites only our unpublished decision in United States v. Jonas, No. 24-5057, 2025 WL 521309 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025). Unpublished decisions are not binding and may be cited only for their persuasive value. See Small v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 122 F.4th 1182, 1195 (9th Cir. 2024); 9th Cir. Rule 36-3. Jonas holds only that because the district court addressed the recidivism § 3553(a) factor explicitly, it erred by not explaining its rejection of the defendant’s argument concerning the Commission’s policy reasons behind Amendment 821, which deal with the likelihood of recidivism. See Jonas, 2025 WL 521309, at *2. Norwood did not present an argument regarding recidivism to the district court and the district court did not address the recidivism factor in its decision. Therefore, Jonas is unpersuasive here. 3 24-5179