UNITED STATES v. HAAR (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Haar's compassionate release motion, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's weighing of statutory factors and rejection of her request.

Sandra Haar sought compassionate release from her federal sentence under a statute allowing sentence reductions for extraordinary and compelling reasons. The district court denied her motion, and she appealed, arguing the court miscalculated the COVID-19 threat to her and improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines. The appeals court found no error. Although the district court consulted the Sentencing Guidelines section on compassionate release, those guidelines are not binding on such motions. The district court properly considered the factors required by law and reasonably concluded that her offense's severity and the need for deterrence outweighed grounds for early release.

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

Key issues

Application of Sentencing Guidelines § 1B1.13 to compassionate release motions
Proper evaluation of COVID-19 as an extraordinary and compelling circumstance
Whether § 3553(a) factors supported denial despite pandemic threat
Allegation of judicial bias

Procedural posture

Sandra Haar appealed the district court's order denying her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

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.