NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50327
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-01040-JFW-1
v.
JONATHAN JEROME HILLS, AKA
Jerome Johnathan Hill, AKA Jerome MEMORANDUM*
Johnson Hill, AKA Janathan J. Hills, AKA
Jerome Hills, AKA Jerome J. Hills, AKA
Jerome Johnathan Hills, AKA Jerome
Jonathan Hills, AKA Jerome Jonthan Hills,
AKA Johanathon Jerome Hills, AKA
Johnatham J. Hills, AKA Johnathan Jerome
Hills, AKA Johnathon Jerome Hills, AKA
Jonatham Jerome Hills, AKA Jonathan Hills,
AKA Jonathon Jerome Hills, AKA Jonthan
Jerome Hills, AKA Romeo Hills, AKA
Robert Ricks, AKA Rome, AKA Romeo,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
*
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).
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Jerome Hills 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.
Hills contends that the district court erred by relying on its evaluation of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors from the original sentencing hearing. We disagree.
Though the court referenced its § 3553(a) analysis from that earlier hearing, the
record reflects that the court considered and applied the factors anew to reasonably
conclude that release was unwarranted in light of Hills’s significant criminal
history and the Bureau of Prisons’s ability to manage Hills’s health conditions.
Moreover, contrary to Hills’s contentions, the record reflects that the district court
considered Hills’s arguments, including those regarding post-sentencing
rehabilitation, and adequately explained its decision to deny his motion. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). The court did not
abuse its discretion. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021).
Appellee’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50327