United States v. Thomas Bailey ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30235
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos.
1:15-cr-00065-SPW-1
v. 1:15-cr-00065-SPW
THOMAS GREGORY BAILEY,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and FORREST and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Thomas Gregory Bailey (“Defendant”) appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). We review the district court’s denial of compassionate release for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion
for compassionate release. A district court has discretion to deny a motion for
compassionate release based solely on an analysis of the factors set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
Here, the district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors: it considered
Defendant’s sentence, the sentencing court’s stated reasons for making
Defendant’s sentences consecutive, and Defendant’s criminal history. The district
court recognized Defendant’s good work during his time in prison but concluded
that Defendant “still has a significant debt left to pay,” and therefore,
compassionate release was not warranted.
Because we conclude the district court properly exercised its discretion to
deny compassionate release based on an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, we need
not address Defendant’s argument regarding his eligibility for safety valve relief
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
AFFIRMED.
2