FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10602828
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Millegan

No. 10602828 · Decided June 11, 2025
No. 10602828 · Ninth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 11, 2025
Citation
No. 10602828
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7441 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:19-cr-00528-IM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES W. MILLEGAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Karin J. Immergut, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 9, 2025** Portland, Oregon Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Defendant James W. Millegan appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. We review the denial of Millegan’s * 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). motion under § 3582(c)(2) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hernandez- Martinez, 933 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2019). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. “The district court’s duty to consider the § 3553(a) factors necessarily entails a duty to provide a sufficient explanation of the sentencing decision to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). Even if the district court abused its discretion by not adequately explaining its rejection of Millegan’s arguments, any error was harmless. See United States v. Cruz-Gramajo, 570 F.3d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 2009). The record shows the district court considered the parties’ arguments, believed that the original 51-month sentence was appropriate in light of Millegan’s conduct (including during the pendency of his case), and found that his individual circumstances did not show a decreased likelihood of recidivism. See Chavez- Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 120 (2018). AFFIRMED. 2 24-7441
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Millegan in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 11, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10602828 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →