United States v. Byron Williams ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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