United States v. Cameron Bell

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10030
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00054-JCM-CWH-1
v.
CAMERON BELL, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Cameron Bell 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v.
Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
Bell challenges the district court’s conclusions that he poses a danger to the
community and that release was unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
§ 3553(a) factors, including the danger Bell poses to the community in light of the
seriousness of his underlying conviction, weighed against granting relief. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A), (C); 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 Bell’s
contention, the court’s explanation was sufficient to show that it had considered the
parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for its decision. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).
Because we decide this case without reference to the documents at issue in
appellee’s motion for judicial notice, the motion is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10030