NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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. 20-10292
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
4:17-cr-01472-JAS-BGM-1
v.
DAVID ALLEN MARKILLIE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Soto, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
The clerk order at Docket Entry No. 35 is vacated. Appellee’s motion to
consolidate is denied. This case will proceed separately from Appeal No. 20-
10151.
In this appeal, David Allen Markillie appeals from the district court’s order
*
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).
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.
Markillie argues that the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 when denying his motion for compassionate release. We need not
determine whether, as Markillie contends, that Guideline applies only to
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons.
Regardless of the applicability of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, the district court properly
denied the motion on the basis of statutory factors set forth in § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court concluded that a reduced sentence was
not appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need
to protect the public, as well as Markillie’s failure to show extraordinary and
compelling reasons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) (compassionate release may
be granted if “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” and the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors, warrant it); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Furthermore, the
district court addressed Markillie’s arguments, adequately explained its decision to
deny relief, and did not make any clearly erroneous factual findings.
Markillie’s motion to expedite is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-10292