UNITED STATES v. REEVES (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Yusuf Deshawn Reeves appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review § 3582(c)(1) decisions for abuse of discretion, United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

Reeves contends that the district court abused its discretion by placing more weight on his potential for future dangerousness than his good conduct while in prison, failing to consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Although the court did not specifically mention Reeves's conduct while incarcerated, the court's explanation reflects that the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and Reeves's arguments, and concluded that Reeves remained a danger to the community. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1342(g); see United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”). Considering the facts of Reeves's offense, the court's finding that Reeves posed a safety risk to the public was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017) (“In reviewing for abuse of discretion ․ [w]e will reverse only if the district court relied on an erroneous legal standard or clearly erroneous findings of fact.”). In light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Reeves's motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013).

AFFIRMED.