United States of America v. Robert Leon Mertens

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEON MERTENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30182
D.C. No. 2:03-cr-00073-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Robert Leon Mertens appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence
reduction decisions for abuse of discretion,” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797,
* 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
JUN 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-30182
799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Mertens was sentenced in 2004 to 444 months’ imprisonment for
convictions including distribution of and possession with intent to distribute
controlled substances, firearm possession, and money laundering. Since that time,
he has filed two successful motions for a sentence reduction, resulting in a
sentence of 314 months. In the instant motion, Mertens sought a further reduction,
citing his ongoing rehabilitative efforts and changing societal attitudes regarding
marijuana.
Contrary to Mertens’s contention, the record shows that the court considered
his arguments and evidence showing that his rehabilitative efforts continued even
after his two successful sentence reduction motions. The court did not abuse its
discretion by concluding that those additional efforts, in addition to changing
societal attitudes about marijuana, did not warrant a third sentence reduction. See
United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court
abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported
by the record).
Mertens’s “Motion for a Notice to the Court and Request for a Hearing” is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --