NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30225

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00004-DLC-3 v.

MEMORANDUM* STEVEN FRANCIS REYCHLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Steven Francis Reychler 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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).

Reychler contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and the district court failed to explain its decision to deny relief. The record reflects that the district court considered Reychler’s arguments and adequately explained that, though Reychler’s age and certain medical issues constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason for his release, release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the seriousness of the offense conduct, the downward variance imposed at sentencing, and the needs to reflect the seriousness of the offense and promote respect for the law. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). The court’s decision to deny relief was not an abuse of discretion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-30225