United States v. Ross
This text of United States v. Ross (United States v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-1366 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:18-cr-00266-WBS-2 v. MEMORANDUM* DARRON DIMITRI ROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 12, 2025**
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Darron Dimitri Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court agreed with the parties that Ross was eligible for a
* 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). sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. It determined,
however, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in Ross’s
72-month sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010)
(describing the two-step process for evaluating a § 3582(c)(2) motion). We review
this conclusion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151,
1155 (9th Cir. 2013).
Contrary to Ross’s claim, the court acknowledged his rehabilitative efforts,
progress towards restitution, and lack of disciplinary violations. It nevertheless
concluded that “a reduction in sentence is inappropriate given the nature of
defendant’s offense and the impact on his victims.” The court reasonably balanced
the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See Dunn,
728 F.3d at 1159.
AFFIRMED.
2 25-1366
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Ross, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ross-ca9-2025.