USA V. FREDERICK JOHNSON, No. 20-30139 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-30139 D.C. No. 9:15-cr-00006-DLC-3 v. FREDERICK GLEN JOHNSON, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Frederick Glen Johnson 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, and we affirm. Contrary to Johnson’s argument, the district court did not abuse its * 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). discretion by denying his motion.1 The court considered Johnson’s offense conduct, which involved repeated brandishing of a firearm, and his numerous prior convictions. In light of Johnson’s history, the court concluded that, even if Johnson had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justifying relief, a reduced sentence was not warranted under the sentencing factors, particularly the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when reviewing a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Because the court’s conclusion is supported by the record, it did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. See 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). We treat Johnson’s “notice and motion of appeal” as a motion to file a supplemental brief. So treated, the motion is granted. AFFIRMED. 1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept, for purposes of this appeal, the parties’ assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 2 20-30139
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.
