United States v. Steven Reychler

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30225
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00004-DLC-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN FRANCIS REYCHLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Steven Francis Reychler 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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).
Reychler contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and the
district court failed to explain its decision to deny relief. The record reflects that
the district court considered Reychler’s arguments and adequately explained that,
though Reychler’s age and certain medical issues constituted an extraordinary and
compelling reason for his release, release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors, including the seriousness of the offense conduct, the downward
variance imposed at sentencing, and the needs to reflect the seriousness of the
offense and promote respect for the law. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.
Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). The court’s decision to deny relief was not an abuse of
discretion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 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 21-30225