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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 11 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No.
03Immergut, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 9, 2025** Portland, Oregon Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
04Millegan appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C.
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.