UNITED STATES v. ALVARADO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-25No. No. 20-30186

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Alvarado's motion for compassionate release.

Tomas Alvarado sought early release from his prison sentence under the compassionate release statute, arguing that his age, medical conditions, good prison conduct, and release plan warranted reduction. The district court denied his motion after weighing the relevant sentencing factors, including the nature of the offense and public safety concerns. On appeal, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the lower court's decision.

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

Key issues

Whether age and medical conditions affecting COVID-19 risk justify compassionate release
Whether good prison conduct and rehabilitation efforts warrant sentence reduction
Whether sentencing factors properly weigh against compassionate release despite mitigating circumstances

Procedural posture

Alvarado appealed pro se from the district court's order denying his 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 **

Tomas Alvarado appeals pro se 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.

Alvarado contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because (1) his age and various medical conditions increase his risk of severe illness or death should he contract COVID-19; (2) he has taken advantage of rehabilitative programs and not had any disciplinary infractions while in prison; and (3) he has a “solid release plan.” The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The record reflects that the district court considered Alvarados medical conditions, age, and mitigating arguments. However, the court reasonably determined that relief was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Moreover, contrary to Alvarados argument, the district 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.”).

We do not reach Alvarados remaining arguments, which are beyond the scope of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

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