UNITED STATES v. RIVERA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-28No. No. 20-10214

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Rivera's motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's consideration and weighing of the relevant statutory factors.

Pablo Rivera sought early release from his sentence under the federal compassionate release statute, arguing the district court improperly weighed the legal factors required for such relief. The district court had denied his request, considering the seriousness of his offense, public safety concerns, his prison conditions, and his medical situation. On appeal, Rivera claimed the lower court focused too heavily on his remaining sentence length and ignored other mitigating circumstances.

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision. The record showed that the lower court had actually considered all relevant factors—including the time remaining, prison conditions, medical issues, and statutory sentencing considerations—before concluding that compassionate release was not warranted. The court also rejected Rivera's argument that his continued imprisonment violated constitutional protections against cruel punishment, finding he had not demonstrated that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crime.

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
Proper application of sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in compassionate release decisions
Whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate for Eighth Amendment purposes

Procedural posture

Rivera appealed from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under the federal statute permitting sentence reductions based on extraordinary and compelling reasons.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Pablo M. Rivera appeals from the district courts 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, and we affirm.

Rivera contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and that the district court concluded otherwise based on an improper weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The record

belies Riveras contention that the district court treated as dispositive the length of time that Rivera has served in custody. While the court noted how much time remained on Riveras sentence, it also considered the conditions at Riveras prison, Riveras medical conditions and other mitigating arguments, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Having considered all of this information, it did not abuse its discretion in concluding that relief was unwarranted in light of the serious nature of the offense, and the need to deter and protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court may consider the § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Moreover, contrary to Riveras argument, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).

Because the record belies Riveras argument that the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to deny relief, we do not reach Riveras arguments concerning that guideline.

To the extent Rivera argues that his continued incarceration violates the Eighth Amendment, and assuming without deciding that this claim may be brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A), Rivera has not shown that his sentence is “grossly disproportionate” to his offense. See United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The parties agree that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which we accept for purposes of this appeal.

. We have confined our review to the record before the district court. See Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2015). Even if we were to consider the new information presented by Rivera on appeal, it would not affect the outcome of this case.