United States of America v. Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAMMY DAVIS DEWITT MORGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10114
D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00019-JAM-KJN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.
Morgan contends that the district court did not consider his argument that his
* 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
JAN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10114
health conditions, role as caregiver to his mother, and post-sentencing
rehabilitation constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate
release, and wrongly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in violation of United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). The record reflects, however,
that the district court sufficiently considered Morgan’s arguments. See Chavez-
Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018) (affirming use of a form
order by the original sentencing judge to deny a sentence reduction motion and
noting that the judge certified on the form that he had reviewed the motion).
Moreover, the court did not cite § 1B1.13 or otherwise indicate that it relied on it
to deny Morgan’s motion. Instead, the court concluded that relief was not
warranted in light of the substantial time remaining on Morgan’s sentence and the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court did not err in deciding the motion solely on
the basis of the § 3553(a) factors, nor did it abuse its discretion in concluding that
those factors did not support compassionate release in Morgan’s case. See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of
review and explaining that a district court need not decide whether defendant has
shown extraordinary and compelling reasons before denying compassionate release
on the basis of the § 3553 factors).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --