United States v. Byron Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 25, 2021
• Docket: 20-30075
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30075

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00076-RRB-1

v.

BYRON WILLIAMS, AKA Felipe, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

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). 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 20-30075