United States v. Steven Carpenter

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 11, 2020
• Docket: 19-30274
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30274

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00065-BMM-2

v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN WILLIAM CARPENTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 5, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Steven William Carpenter appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

see United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir. 1996), 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 government asserts that Carpenter’s appeal should be dismissed because

Carpenter filed an untimely notice of appeal. Contrary to the government’s

contention, Carpenter’s notice of appeal was timely filed within fourteen days of

the district court’s order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); Houston v. Lack, 487

U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is filed at the time the

prisoner delivers it to prison authorities).

Carpenter contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction because he

suffers from debilitating medical conditions that have been exacerbated by his

confinement. However, Carpenter has not demonstrated that “extraordinary and

compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction because the recordi reflects that

his medical conditions are stable and have not substantially diminished his ability

to provide self-care within the facility. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13 cmt. n.1(A). The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by

denying Carpenter’s motion for a sentence reduction.

AFFIRMED.

i We have confined our review of the record to what was presented to the district court and decline to consider documents Carpenter submitted for the first time on appeal. See Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2014) (generally documents that are not filed with the district court cannot be made part of the appellate record). Even were we to consider the documents, however, it would not affect the outcome of this case.

2 19-30274