Court Opinion

ID: 4663053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-25 21:00:35.465868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:48.287555
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FEB 25 2021
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 20-30075

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00076-RRB-1

 v.

BYRON WILLIAMS, AKA Felipe,                     MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Alaska
                   Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 17, 2021**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Byron Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion

for a reduction of sentence under the First Step Act. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Williams contends that the district court erred by failing to give sufficient

      *
             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).
weight to his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. Assuming without deciding

that Williams was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, the

district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a reduction was

unwarranted in light of Williams’s misconduct while in custody and his criminal

history. See United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 479 (9th Cir. 2020); see also

United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The

weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the

district court.”). Moreover, contrary to Williams’s contention, the record reflects

that the court considered Williams’s arguments and provided a sufficient

explanation for its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,

1965 (2018).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     20-30075