United States of America v. Shaun Roberts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SHAUN ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10240
D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00567-JSW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Shaun Roberts 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.
The parties dispute whether Roberts exhausted his administrative remedies
* 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
MAR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10240
before filing the instant compassionate release motion. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We need not decide this issue because the district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that, even if Roberts had met the exhaustion
requirement, he was not entitled to relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th
1278, 1281, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and holding that
administrative exhaustion is not jurisdictional). Just three months before Roberts
filed the instant motion, the district court granted an 18-year reduction in Roberts’s
sentence based on the changes to the stacking provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
made by the First Step Act. See United States v. Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th
Cir. 2022) (holding that non-retroactive changes in sentencing law may provide an
extraordinary and compelling reason under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)). Contrary to
Roberts’s contention, the district court reasonably concluded that none of the
arguments offered in his subsequent motion provided a basis for a further reduction
in his sentence. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.
2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,
implausible, or not supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --