USA V. DERNEVAL DIMMER, No. 21-30101 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 21-30101 21-30102 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:12-cr-00035-TMB-1 3:12-cr-00056-TMB-7 v. DERNEVAL RODNELL DIMMER, AKA Pedro Dimmer, AKA Jabba, AKA Big Cuz, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Derneval Rodnell Dimmer appeals pro se 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 * 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). (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm. Dimmer contends that remand is required because the district court erroneously treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as the applicable policy statement in violation of this court’s decision in Aruda. We disagree. Although the district court cited § 1B1.13 in its discussion of the applicable legal framework, the record does not support Dimmer’s claim that the district court limited its analysis of what could constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason to those factors listed in the Guideline. Instead, the record shows that the court considered the merits of each of Dimmer’s reasons for compassionate release. Contrary to Dimmer’s assertion, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that none constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. See 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 without support in the record). Dimmer’s remaining arguments are also unavailing. Having determined that Dimmer had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, the district court was not required to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Dimmer’s arguments concerning his proposed release plan and rehabilitative efforts. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). Moreover, the district court properly considered the filings by the government and the probation office related to Dimmer’s motion, including his 2 21-30101 & 21-30102 medical records, and did not err by failing to consider the medical records that Dimmer submitted after his motion was denied. Dimmer’s motion for sanctions is denied. Dimmer’s motion for bond pending appeal, and to compel the government to provide him a copy of its answering brief, are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 3 21-30101 & 21-30102
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
