FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 6 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50269
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00060-SJO-TJH-1
v.
BRETT VANBENSCHOTEN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Brett VanBenschoten appeals pro se 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. We deny
VanBenschoten’s emergency motions for relief.
*
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).
“[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam) (quoting United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam)). “A district court may abuse its discretion if it does not apply the correct
law or if it rests its decision on a clearly erroneous finding of material fact.” Id.
(quoting Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying VanBenschoten’s
motion after considering the statutory sentencing factors. The compassionate
release statute directs courts to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The district court here properly considered those
factors and concluded that, on balance, they weighed against release.
VanBenschoten had received a below-Guidelines sentence of 96 months, and at the
time the district court ruled on his motion, he had served only twenty percent of
it—roughly 18 months. Moreover, his crimes were serious: he was found in
possession of a significant amount of methamphetamine as well as other drugs.
Thus, the district court applied the correct law and its decision did not rest on a
clearly erroneous finding of material fact.
AFFIRMED.
2