United States v. Shaw

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 24-4957
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 11 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-4957 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00061-HDM-CSD-1 v. MEMORANDUM* AARON SHAW,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 9, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, S.R. THOMAS, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Aaron Shaw appeals from the district court’s denial of 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.

* 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 district court properly determined Shaw was ineligible for a sentence

reduction because Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 821 did not lower his

guideline range. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 933 F.3d 1126, 1130

(9th Cir. 2019); U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.10(a)(2) (“A reduction . . . is not authorized

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) if . . . [the amendment] does not have the effect of

lowering the defendant’s applicable guideline range.”), 4A1.1(e). The district

court initially found that Shaw had a criminal history score of eleven, including

two status points. This total and Shaw’s offense level corresponded to criminal

history category V. Because this overstated Shaw’s criminal history, the court

placed him in category IV and sentenced him at the bottom of the corresponding

guideline range.

It is unclear whether the district court simultaneously reduced Shaw’s

criminal history score, but the court did not lower his score to eight or state that it

was doing so, as Shaw now contends. Excluding his status points, he had at least

seven points, so Amendment 821 lowered his score by just one point, keeping him

in category IV. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(e). The district court was therefore correct

that the amendment did not lower his category or, by extension, the applicable

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining Shaw’s motion on

the alternative basis that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against a

2 24-4957 sentence reduction. See United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 975 (9th Cir. 2021)

(setting forth the standard of review). The court explained why the initial sentence

was still necessary under the relevant factors, highlighting the violent nature of

Shaw’s robbery offenses and his other criminal history. This explanation mirrored

the court’s concerns at sentencing about reducing Shaw’s category and provided an

“intuitive reason” for not lowering his sentence further. Id. at 977 (quoting

Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 120 (2018)). The court’s explanation

was sufficient to show that it “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a

reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Chavez-

Meza, 585 U.S. at 113 (citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-4957