NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30138
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00145-TOR-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
VASSILY ANTHONY THOMPSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Vassily Anthony Thompson appeals from the district court’s orders denying
his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and
motion for reconsideration. 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.
Thompson contends that the district court erred by applying U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13, and by finding that he presents an ongoing danger. The record shows,
however, that the district court viewed § 1B1.13 as “guidance” and found that it
had the discretion to consider reasons beyond those enumerated in the Guideline,
which comports with Aruda. See 993 F.3d at 801-02. Further, contrary to
Thompson’s assertion, the record shows that the district court considered all of the
arguments Thompson advanced in support of his motions. Finally, the court’s
conclusion that Thompson’s release would pose a danger to the public was
supported by Thompson’s behavior while on pre-trial release, as well as the court’s
conclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that the sentence imposed was necessary “to
protect the public from defendant’s fraudulent conduct.” As the court explained,
the § 3553(a) sentencing factors continued to support that sentence in light of
Thompson’s offense conduct and the needs to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, and afford adequate
deterrence. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021); 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 20-30138