United States v. Cameron Bell ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 25 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-10030
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
    2:15-cr-00054-JCM-CWH-1
    v.
    CAMERON BELL,                                   MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Nevada
    James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 17, 2021**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
    Cameron Bell 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
    . Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v.
    Aruda, 
    993 F.3d 797
    , 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
    Bell challenges the district court’s conclusions that he poses a danger to the
    community and that release was unwarranted under the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
    § 3553(a) factors, including the danger Bell poses to the community in light of the
    seriousness of his underlying conviction, weighed against granting relief. See 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(2)(A), (C); 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). Moreover, contrary to Bell’s
    contention, the court’s explanation was sufficient to show that it had considered the
    parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision. See Chavez-Meza v.
    United States, 
    138 S. Ct. 1959
    , 1965 (2018).
    Because we decide this case without reference to the documents at issue in
    appellee’s motion for judicial notice, the motion is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      21-10030
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-10030

Filed Date: 8/25/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/25/2021