United States v. Frederick Johnson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30139
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:15-cr-00006-DLC-3
v.
FREDERICK GLEN JOHNSON, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Frederick Glen Johnson 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, and we affirm.
Contrary to Johnson’s argument, the district court did not abuse its
*
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).
discretion by denying his motion.1 The court considered Johnson’s offense
conduct, which involved repeated brandishing of a firearm, and his numerous prior
convictions. In light of Johnson’s history, the court concluded that, even if
Johnson had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying
relief, a reduced sentence was not warranted under the sentencing factors,
particularly the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district
court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when
reviewing a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(C). Because the court’s conclusion is supported by the record, it did not
abuse its discretion by denying relief. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d
1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision
is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
We treat Johnson’s “notice and motion of appeal” as a motion to file a
supplemental brief. So treated, the motion is granted.
AFFIRMED.
1
The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We accept, for purposes of this appeal, the parties’ assertion that
the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A).
2 20-30139