United States of America v. James Brett Zimmerman

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JAMES BRETT ZIMMERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-10418
D.C. No.
3:05-cr-00241-LRH-VPC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
James Brett Zimmerman 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, and we affirm.
Zimmerman contends that the district court failed to consider sufficiently his
* 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
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-10418
arguments for compassionate release and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and did
not adequately explain its decision to deny his motion. The record reflects that the
court considered Zimmerman’s arguments and the relevant § 3553(a) factors and
provided an adequate explanation of its reasons for denying relief, including
Zimmerman’s extensive criminal history. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138
S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). We need not reach Zimmerman’s argument that the
district court’s findings regarding the risk to him posed by COVID-19 were
erroneous because the court’s independent conclusion that the § 3553(a) factors did
not support relief provides an adequate basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller,
2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny a compassionate
release motion solely on the basis of the § 3553(a) factors). Because the district
court appropriately weighed the § 3553(a) factors and Zimmerman’s arguments,
and reasonably concluded that relief was not warranted, it did not abuse its
discretion by denying Zimmerman’s motion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281, 1284;
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 of 2 --