NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10246
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00308-JAM-DB-1
v.
KENDALL THRIFT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Kendall Thrift appeals from the district court’s order denying his 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.
Contrary to Thrift’s argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion
*
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).
by denying his motion.1 The district court considered Thrift’s offense conduct,
which involved a large amount of marijuana and a number of firearms, including
several stolen weapons. It reasonably concluded that, even if Thrift had
demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” a reduced sentence was not
appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to
protect the public, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the
offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when reviewing a motion for
compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (C) (setting
forth sentencing factors); United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.
2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.
1
The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We accept, for purposes of this appeal, the parties’ assertion that
the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
2 20-10246