United States of America v. Brian Stone

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRIAN STONE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10189
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00038-MCE-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021 **
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Brian Stone appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v.
Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and 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).
FILED
JUN 30 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10189
The district court assumed that Stone’s medical conditions, in combination
with the threat from COVID-19, established an “extraordinary and compelling”
reason to grant relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). However, it denied
compassionate release after consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
including the serious nature of Stone’s underlying offense and his general
disregard for the rule of law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must
consider applicable § 3553(a) factors). Stone contends that the district court gave
insufficient consideration to his medical conditions and vulnerability to COVID-19
and gave excessive weight to the nature of his offense. We disagree. The weight
to give the various § 3553(a) factors is for the district court to determine, see
United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009), and it did
not abuse its discretion in 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). Moreover, contrary to
Stone’s remaining arguments, the court did not rely on any improper
considerations to deny relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --