United States of America v. Joshua Sadat Washington

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA SADAT WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-372
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00279-JAD-PAL-1
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-372
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 of 2 --