NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 22 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-19 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:21-cr-00168-SI-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

SCOT SUTHERLAND HAINES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Scot Sutherland Haines appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* 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). Haines contends the district court erred by insufficiently explaining its

analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The record belies this

claim. After quoting extensively from the government’s opposition, which

discussed Haines’s criminal history, offense conduct, and multiple violations and

arrests while on pretrial release, the court found that “a reduction in Mr. Haines’

sentence of imprisonment would undermine the sentencing factors identified by

Congress in [1]8 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” This record provides sufficient explanation.

See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 115-17 (2018). Moreover,

“[g]iven [Haines’s] extensive criminal history, as well as the deference we must

afford the district court when it makes these discretionary decisions, we cannot

conclude that the district court abused its discretion with this finding.” Keller, 2

F.4th at 1284. Lastly, contrary to Haines’s argument, the court was not required to

address whether he had extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See id.

(explaining that “a district court that properly denies compassionate release need

not evaluate each step”).

AFFIRMED.

2 25-19