United States of America v. Joshua John Welliver

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA JOHN WELLIVER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30052
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00153-DLC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Joshua John Welliver 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, and we affirm.
Welliver contends that the district court did not fully consider U.S.S.G.
* 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).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-30052
§ 1B1.13 or adequately explain its decision to deny relief. He argues that he is
entitled to compassionate release in light of his family circumstances, the
difficulties posed by the Bureau of Prisons’ COVID-19 restrictions, the 18 U.S.C
§ 3553(a) factors, and because he is not a danger to the community. We review the
district court’s denial of compassionate release for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021).
The record reflects that the district court treated § 1B1.13 appropriately,
considered Welliver’s arguments, and sufficiently explained its determination that,
although Welliver’s concerns about his family were “compelling on a personal
level,” his family’s situation was considered at the time of sentencing and did not
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for relief. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018). The district court did not abuse its
discretion in reaching this conclusion, or in concluding that reducing Welliver’s
significantly below-Guidelines sentence to time-served would denigrate the
seriousness of the offense, pose a danger to the public, and undermine respect for
the law. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C); Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also
United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that a
district court abuses its discretion only where its decision is illogical, implausible,
or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --