NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10034
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:08-cr-00027-GMN-GWF-1
v.
GREGORY HOFFMAN,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Hoffman 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.
Hoffman contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
*
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).
as an applicable policy statement and abused its discretion in concluding that
Hoffman’s release would pose a danger to the public. This court recently held that
the current version of § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motions brought by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802
(9th Cir. 2021). While the district court appears to have improperly applied
§ 1B1.13 in assessing Hoffman’s dangerousness, it also found that Hoffman’s
release was not warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the
nature and circumstances of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Given the record before the district court, it did not
abuse its discretion in denying relief under § 3553(a). See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799
(stating standard of review); 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); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,
587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a
particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the court’s
§ 3553(a) analysis alone provides a basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2
F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10034