United States of America v. Robert St. Aubyn Saunders, a.k.a. Milton Crooms, a.k.a. Robert S. Saunders, a.k.a.…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ST. AUBYN SAUNDERS, a.k.a.
Milton Crooms, a.k.a. Robert S. Saunders,
a.k.a. Robert St. Aubya Saunders, a.k.a.
Michael Williams,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10526
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01677-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert St. Aubyn Saunders appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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).
FILED
JAN 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10526
The district court denied Saunders’s motion for a sentence reduction, finding
that Saunders was ineligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) and
that, even if he were eligible, a sentence reduction was not warranted under the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We need not determine whether Saunders is
eligible for a reduction because, even assuming he is eligible, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in concluding that a reduction was not warranted in light of
the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of
Saunders’s offense, his extensive criminal history and the continuing risk he poses
to the public, and the significant benefits he obtained from the plea agreement. See
Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (sentence reduction under
section 3582(c)(2) is only available if defendant is eligible for a reduction and
district court determines a reduction is warranted under the section 3553(a)
sentencing factors and the circumstances of the case); United States v. Chaney, 581
F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009) (discretionary denials of sentence reduction
motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion).
We grant Saunders’s motion requesting leave to file an untimely reply brief.
The Clerk shall file the brief received on December 24, 2018 (Docket Entry No.
25).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --