NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7878

D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00007-SI-1 v.

MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW LEE CRAIG,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2025

Portland, Oregon Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Matthew Lee Craig appeals the denial of an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)-(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 F.4th 961, 964 (9th Cir. 2021), but review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal standard, United States

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We affirm.

1. Craig contends that the district court erred by stating it lacked authority to consider his post-conviction incarceration conditions when analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. See Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 F.4th at 968 (holding that a district court abuses its discretion if it “erroneously conclude[s] that” a defendant’s argument cannot be considered “in its § 3553(a) factor analysis”).

In denying Craig’s motion, the district court stated: “Moreover, the Court does not evaluate Defendant’s current circumstances in prison because the considerations that the Court based Defendant’s original sentence on have not changed.” United States v. Craig, No. 3:20-CR-07-SI, 2024 WL 5168335, at *2 (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2024). Even assuming that Craig’s incarceration conditions were relevant to the § 3553(a) analysis, “[t]he district court’s comment must be read in the context of the entirety of its ruling and the record as a whole.” United States v. Ehmer, 87 F.4th 1073, 1116 (9th Cir. 2023). Under such a reading, we find no reversible error.

The district court correctly stated that “[s]tep two of the § 3582(c) inquiry is to consider any applicable § 3553(a) factors and determine, in the discretion of the Court, whether any reduction authorized by the Guidelines amendment is warranted in whole or in part.” Craig, 2024 WL 5168335, at *2. The court’s order carefully reviewed those factors, including the need “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C). It expressly found that because of “the

2 24-7878 danger he poses to the community,” and because of his extensive criminal record, Craig’s original sentence “remains appropriate under the § 3553(a) factors.” Craig, 2024 WL 5168335, at *3.

Significantly, the district court quoted extensively from United States v. Steidell, No. 12-CR-01259-DKW-02, 2024 WL 1414195, at *3 (D. Haw. Apr. 2, 2024), after the statement about Craig’s current circumstances. See Craig, 2024 WL 5168335, at *2. Steidell also considered a sentence reduction motion based on post- conviction factors. 2024 WL 1414195, at *3. The Steidell court recognized the defendant’s argument but nonetheless denied the motion because the conditions justifying the original sentence “ha[d] not changed.” Id. The district court’s reliance on Steidell convinces us that it employed a similar analysis.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-7878