United States of America v. BYRON WILLIAMS, AKA Felipe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BYRON WILLIAMS, AKA Felipe,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30075
D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00076-RRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Byron Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for a reduction of sentence under the First Step Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the district court erred by failing to give sufficient
* 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).
FILED
FEB 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-30075
weight to his post-sentencing rehabilitation efforts. Assuming without deciding
that Williams was eligible for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that a reduction was
unwarranted in light of Williams’s misconduct while in custody and his criminal
history. See United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 479 (9th Cir. 2020); see also
United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The
weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the
district court.”). Moreover, contrary to Williams’s contention, the record reflects
that the court considered Williams’s arguments and provided a sufficient
explanation for its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,
1965 (2018).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --