NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10129
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00336-JAD-CWH-1
v.
HARRISON JOHNSON, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Harrison Johnson 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
*
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).
Johnson contends that the district court abused its discretion by: (1) treating
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding; (2) concluding, contrary to the parties’ agreement,
that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate
release; and (3) failing to consider the mitigating factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
and adequately explain its reasons for denying relief. We need not resolve
Johnson’s arguments regarding § 1B1.13 because the district court made clear that,
even if Johnson had established that his medical conditions were extraordinary and
compelling under § 1B1.13, it would deny relief under § 3553(a). See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny
compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors alone).
Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying relief under § 3553(a). The court specifically acknowledged
Johnson’s rehabilitative efforts, accumulation of good time credits, and family
support, but reasonably concluded that those factors were outweighed by the
seriousness of Johnson’s offense, his criminal history, and his prison disciplinary
violations. Moreover, the court adequately explained its reasons for denying relief.
See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965, 1967 (2018); see also
United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court need
not explicitly reference each of defendant’s mitigating arguments).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10129