United States of America v. Markus Vernon Moore

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARKUS VERNON MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 21-30255
21-30256
D.C. Nos. 3:05-cr-05823-RJB-5
3:06-cr-05419-RJB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Markus Vernon Moore appeals from the
district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281
* 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).
FILED
JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30255 & 21-30256
(9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Moore contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion because it rejected his sentencing disparity argument without fully
analyzing whether his sentence was disparate from those imposed on his co-
defendants. However, the court did engage in a disparity analysis, noting that
Moore was unique because he was the shooter, he had two cases before the court,
and he had an extensive criminal history. The court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to give greater consideration to Moore’s disparity argument. The court
also reasonably concluded that Moore’s other arguments in support of his motion
were insufficient to warrant compassionate release. As the court explained, Moore
had not shown that his sentence was excessive, and his remorse and rehabilitation
had to be weighed against his “spotty prison infraction record.” On this record, the
court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See id. at 1284 (describing the
deference afforded to a district court making discretionary decisions on
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motions).
The government’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --