United States v. Ryan

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-7060 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-00291-WHO-1 v. MEMORANDUM* LAMAR NOLAN RYAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William H. Orrick, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2026**

Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Lamar Nolan Ryan appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 81-month sentence imposed upon remand for resentencing

following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and

ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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). U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ryan contends the district court should have continued the sentencing

hearing to allow him to obtain a mental health evaluation to establish his genuine

rehabilitation and remorse. We review this claim for abuse of discretion. See

United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d 1130, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. As the court explained, an

evaluation was not necessary to help it understand Ryan’s rehabilitative efforts,

which it described favorably in explaining why it chose to impose a sentence

within the lowered Guidelines range, rather than varying upward as the

government requested. On this record, Ryan has not shown that a continuance

would have resulted in a useful purpose or that the denial of the continuance

prejudiced him. See id. at 1138-39 (describing factors to be considered in assessing

whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance). Because

the court’s denial of a continuance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, we

affirm. See id. at 1138.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-7060