USA V. STEVEN BAKER, No. 21-30236 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-30236 D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00087-SPW-1 v. STEVEN WARREN BAKER, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Steven Warren Baker appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Baker contends that the district court erred by categorically rejecting his * 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). argument that his family circumstances warranted compassionate release. Even if Baker is correct, we see no cause to remand. Baker did not substantiate his claim regarding his family circumstances, just as he failed to substantiate his asserted medical conditions. On this record, we agree with the district court that Baker did not meet his burden to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. We do not reach Baker’s additional argument that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release because the district court did not decide that issue, nor was it required to do so after it determined that Baker had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A] district court that properly denies compassionate release need not evaluate each step.”). AFFIRMED. 2 21-30236

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.