UNITED STATES v. DRUMMONDO FARIAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-06No. No. 20-10187, 20-10256

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of both motions for compassionate release.

Jacob Drummondo-Farias, proceeding without an attorney, appealed the district court's rejection of two requests for compassionate release under federal law. The appellate court reviewed whether the district court had abused its discretion in denying these motions. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting that Drummondo-Farias was 37 years old and did not present clear risk factors for severe COVID-19 complications, even if obesity were assumed. Additionally, with nearly 15 years remaining on his 27-year sentence, the court determined that the statutory sentencing factors weighed against granting release.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
Whether the appellant presented a demonstrated risk for severe COVID-19 illness
Whether sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) supported release

Procedural posture

The appellant appealed pro se from the district court's denial of two motions for compassionate release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jacob Drummondo-Farias appeals pro se from the district courts denial of two motions for compassionate release brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for compassionate release under Section 3582(c)(1). United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). A district court abuses its discretion when “its application of the correct legal standard [is] (1) ‘illogical,’ (2) ‘implausible,’ or (3) without ‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’ ” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 577, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying either of Drummondo-Fariass motions for compassionate release. At 37 years old, Drummondo-Farias did not present a demonstrated risk factor for severe illness with COVID-19 even assuming he was obese, and nearly 15 years remained on his 27-year sentence. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it determined that the Section 3553(a) weighed against release in light of Drummondo-Fariass criminal history. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the “deference we must afford the district court when it makes these discretionary decisions”). There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.