Full text
United States v. Gay
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-4408 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:19-cr-00019-SLG-MMS-2 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTAEUS TULANE GAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Antaeus Tulane Gay appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gay contends the district court erred in concluding that the death of 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).
children’s mother did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. He asserts that the district court misapplied the relevant Guideline and relied on clearly erroneous facts. We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). A district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The court did not clearly err in finding that the children’s mother was not their caregiver at the time of her death, see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3)(A), nor did it rely on any other clearly erroneous findings of material fact. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281. Moreover, Gay has not shown any abuse of discretion in the court’s consideration of the availability of other caregivers for Gay’s children. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3). To the extent Gay raises new arguments regarding the children’s care that were not raised in the district court, we do not consider them. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Gay’s motion to treat the government’s failure to file its answering brief during the government shutdown as a waiver of its arguments is denied.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[2] 25-4408