NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Nos. 21-30101
21-30102
Plaintiff-Appellee,
D.C. Nos. 3:12-cr-00035-TMB-1
v. 3:12-cr-00056-TMB-7
DERNEVAL RODNELL DIMMER, AKA
Pedro Dimmer, AKA Jabba, AKA Big Cuz, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Derneval Rodnell Dimmer appeals pro se
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.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Dimmer contends that remand is required because the district court
erroneously treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as the applicable policy statement in
violation of this court’s decision in Aruda. We disagree. Although the district
court cited § 1B1.13 in its discussion of the applicable legal framework, the record
does not support Dimmer’s claim that the district court limited its analysis of what
could constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to those factors listed in
the Guideline. Instead, the record shows that the court considered the merits of
each of Dimmer’s reasons for compassionate release. Contrary to Dimmer’s
assertion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that none
constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. See 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 without support in the record).
Dimmer’s remaining arguments are also unavailing. Having determined that
Dimmer had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for release,
the district court was not required to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
including Dimmer’s arguments concerning his proposed release plan and
rehabilitative efforts. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir.
2021). Moreover, the district court properly considered the filings by the
government and the probation office related to Dimmer’s motion, including his
2 21-30101 & 21-30102
medical records, and did not err by failing to consider the medical records that
Dimmer submitted after his motion was denied.
Dimmer’s motion for sanctions is denied. Dimmer’s motion for bond
pending appeal, and to compel the government to provide him a copy of its
answering brief, are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-30101 & 21-30102