United States v. Washington

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 28, 2024

Docket23-372

StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Washington (United States v. Washington) 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.

Bluebook

United States v. Washington, (9th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-372 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00279-JAD-PAL-1 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JOSHUA SADAT WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Sadat Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying compassionate release

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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 denied Washington’s motion because he had not addressed

any of the compassionate release factors or identified any grounds for

reconsideration of the court’s prior order. On appeal, Washington contends that he

is entitled to compassionate release in light of the extreme stress that he is

experiencing. This contention does not demonstrate that the district court abused

its discretion in denying Washington’s motion. See United States v. Lopez-Cruz,

730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). Washington’s

reconsideration motion and arguments on appeal fail to identify any basis for

revisiting the district court’s prior order denying compassionate release. See

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993) (discussing when reconsideration is appropriate).

We do not address in these proceedings Washington’s arguments concerning

appointment of counsel for his 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. In Appeal No. 23-3297

this court will determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to

the district court’s order denying Washington’s § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-372

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-372 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00279-JAD-PAL-1 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM*

JOSHUA SADAT WASHINGTON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Joshua Sadat Washington appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for reconsideration of an order denying compassionate release

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 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 denied Washington’s motion because he had not addressed

any of the compassionate release factors or identified any grounds for

reconsideration of the court’s prior order. On appeal, Washington contends that he

is entitled to compassionate release in light of the extreme stress that he is

experiencing. This contention does not demonstrate that the district court abused

its discretion in denying Washington’s motion. See United States v. Lopez-Cruz,

730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating standard of review). Washington’s

reconsideration motion and arguments on appeal fail to identify any basis for

revisiting the district court’s prior order denying compassionate release. See

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993) (discussing when reconsideration is appropriate).

We do not address in these proceedings Washington’s arguments concerning

appointment of counsel for his 28 U.S.C § 2255 motion. In Appeal No. 23-3297

this court will determine whether a certificate of appealability should issue as to

the district court’s order denying Washington’s § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-372

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

United States v. Andres Lopez-Cruz

730 F.3d 803 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

United States v. Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-washington-ca9-2024.