United States of America v. Shawn Michael Conley

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAWN MICHAEL CONLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10347
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00371-JAM-8
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Shawn Michael Conley 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. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022), 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).
FILED
DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10347
Conley first contends that the district court erred in its analysis of his
asserted extraordinary and compelling circumstances because it did not sufficiently
consider his arguments and relied on materially incorrect facts. The record
reflects, however, that the district court adequately considered Conley’s
circumstances and arguments for release, both individually and in combination.
Moreover, even if the district court’s statement that Conley failed to accept
responsibility for his offense is at odds with the court’s decision to grant him an
acceptance of responsibility adjustment at the original sentencing, there is
substantial record support for its overall conclusion that Conley’s circumstances
were distinguishable from those of his codefendant.
The district court also reasonably concluded that, even considering Conley’s
rehabilitation and release plan, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against
release. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). Contrary
to Conley’s arguments, the district court sufficiently explained this decision and
did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the original sentence remained
appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 948-50.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --