Court Opinion

ID: 9364927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 18:00:34.323383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:41.421984
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-50183

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                3:95-cr-00072-WQH-2
 v.

BOBBY LEE SEHORN, AKA Lamar                     MEMORANDUM*
Athens,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of California
                   William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted January 10, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Bobby Sehorn appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirm.

      We need not decide whether the district court erred in determining that no

“extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction, 18 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                                                                            Page 2 of 3

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), because the district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors do not support Sehorn’s release.

See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2022); United States v.

Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). Before the district court,

Sehorn presented mitigating evidence of a traumatic childhood, his post-sentencing

rehabilitation (including work, volunteer, and educational history), the support of

his family and friends, and the disparity between his sentence and the sentence a

defendant would receive for comparable conduct today. The court was

nevertheless unpersuaded. It explained:

             The nature and circumstances of this case were
             aggravated. Defendant was the leader and organizer of a
             robbery crew using firearms and violence to commit the
             offense. Defendant escaped arrest and continued to
             commit criminal offenses, including breaking and
             entering in Ohio, and an armed bank robbery in Los
             Angeles. Defendant’s history and characteristics at the
             time of sentencing were aggravated. Defendant spent his
             adult life engaged in criminal activity, including
             numerous burglary and robbery convictions. After his
             incarceration in this case, Defendant continued to violate
             the prison rules, including explicit threats of violence, as
             recently as three years ago.

      The district court’s explicit reference to Sehorn’s violation of prison rules

satisfies us that the court considered Sehorn’s entire post-sentencing record.

Likewise, the court’s discussion elsewhere of relevant changes to sentencing under

18 U.S.C. § 924(c) satisfies us that the court took note of intervening
                                                                          Page 3 of 3

circumstances. See United States v. Lizarraras-Chacon, 14 F.4th 961, 967–68, 968

n.4 (9th Cir. 2021). Our conclusion is further supported by the fact that the district

court was familiar with Sehorn’s case, having ruled on two prior § 3582(c) motions

and one motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 977

(9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

      Sehorn argues on appeal that the district court failed to adequately explain

its reasoning and address his mitigation arguments. To be sure, a district court’s

complete failure to address “specific, nonfrivolous argument[s] tethered to”

relevant § 3553(a) factors can be grounds for reversal. United States v. Trujillo,

713 F.3d 1003, 1009–11 (9th Cir. 2013); see also Concepcion v. United States, 142

S. Ct. 2389, 2404 (2022) (noting that a “detailed” explanation is not required). But

a judge “need only set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has

considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own

legal decisionmaking authority.” Wright, 46 F.4th at 949 (internal quotation marks

omitted). In our view, that standard was met here.

      AFFIRMED.