USA V. CAMERON BELL, No. 21-10030 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CAMERON BELL, FILED AUG 25 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-10030 D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00054-JCM-CWH-1 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

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.