UNITED STATES v. HAAR (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-25No. No. 20-10272

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Haar's motion for compassionate release, concluding that the lower court properly exercised its discretion in weighing the statutory sentencing factors and did not abuse that discretion in refusing to grant relief.

Sandra Haar sought compassionate release from her sentence under federal law, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic posed a significant threat to her health and that the district court had wrongly applied sentencing guidelines in rejecting her request. The district court denied her motion after considering the severity of her offense and the need for deterrence. On appeal, Haar challenged both the court's evaluation of pandemic risks and its reliance on a particular sentencing guideline provision.

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

Key issues

Whether sentencing guideline § 1B1.13 is binding in compassionate release proceedings
Whether the district court properly assessed COVID-19 pandemic risks to the defendant
Whether the district court abused its discretion in applying statutory sentencing factors to deny compassionate release
Whether the district court exhibited bias

Procedural posture

Sandra Haar appealed the district court's denial of her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and the appellate court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Haar appeals from the district courts order denying her 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.

Haar contends that the district court erred by improperly assessing the threat posed to her by the COVID-19 pandemic and by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement. We recently held that the current version of § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to compassionate release motions brought by a prisoner. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021).

The district court followed the guidance of § 1B1.13, but recognized that it did not limit the circumstances the court could consider in evaluating Haars motion. See id. (“The Sentencing Commissions statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district courts discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not binding.”). The court gave full consideration to Haars arguments in support of her motion and concluded that release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the egregiousness of Haars offense conduct and the need to afford adequate deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider applicable § 3553(a) factors); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B). On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799; see also 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).

We reject as meritless Haars allegations that the district court was biased.

We do not consider matters that are not distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.