NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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