Court Opinion

ID: 4879235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-08-26 20:02:16.767893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:21.649023
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 26 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 20-10418

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                3:05-cr-00241-LRH-VPC-1
 v.

JAMES BRETT ZIMMERMAN,
                                                MEMORANDUM*
                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                    Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 17, 2021**

Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      James Brett Zimmerman appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Zimmerman contends that the district court failed to consider sufficiently 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).
arguments for compassionate release and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and did

not adequately explain its decision to deny his motion. The record reflects that the

court considered Zimmerman’s arguments and the relevant § 3553(a) factors and

provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for denying relief, including

Zimmerman’s extensive criminal history. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138

S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). We need not reach Zimmerman’s argument that the

district court’s findings regarding the risk to him posed by COVID-19 were

erroneous because the court’s independent conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did

not support relief provides an adequate basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller,

2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny a compassionate

release motion solely on the basis of the § 3553(a) factors). Because the district

court appropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors and Zimmerman’s arguments,

and reasonably concluded that relief was not warranted, it did not abuse its

discretion by denying Zimmerman’s motion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281, 1284;

United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court

abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported

by the record).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     20-10418