United States v. Ross

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-1366 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:18-cr-00266-WBS-2 v. MEMORANDUM* DARRON DIMITRI ROSS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 12, 2025** Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Darron Dimitri Ross appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. The district court agreed with the parties that Ross was eligible for a * 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). sentence reduction under Amendment 821 to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. It determined, however, that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support a reduction in Ross’s 72-month sentence. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (describing the two-step process for evaluating a § 3582(c)(2) motion). We review this conclusion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Contrary to Ross’s claim, the court acknowledged his rehabilitative efforts, progress towards restitution, and lack of disciplinary violations. It nevertheless concluded that “a reduction in sentence is inappropriate given the nature of defendant’s offense and the impact on his victims.” The court reasonably balanced the § 3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159. AFFIRMED. 2 25-1366