UNITED STATES v. LOFTIS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-22No. No. 20-30165

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of compassionate release, finding the decision supported by the record and statutory sentencing factors and therefore not an abuse of discretion.

Joseph Brent Loftis sought compassionate release from his prison sentence under federal law, arguing that his age and existing health conditions placed him at serious risk of complications or death from COVID-19. The district court rejected this request after weighing Loftis's medical vulnerabilities against the danger he posed to public safety, finding the former insufficient to justify his release. On appeal, Loftis challenged the decision as an abuse of discretion and also raised an Eighth Amendment proportionality claim.

The appellate court found that the district court's decision was supported by the record and applicable sentencing factors, and therefore did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The court assumed without deciding whether an Eighth Amendment claim could be brought under the compassionate release statute, but concluded that Loftis had failed to demonstrate his sentence was grossly disproportionate to his crimes. The court also declined to address a request for injunctive relief directing the Bureau of Prisons to screen him for home confinement, as this argument was raised for the first time on appeal.

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

Key issues

Whether a district court abused its discretion in denying compassionate release based on COVID-19 vulnerability and medical conditions
Whether age and health risks sufficiently outweigh public safety concerns for sentence reduction
Whether an Eighth Amendment gross disproportionality claim may be brought under the compassionate release statute

Procedural posture

Loftis 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 **

Joseph Brent Loftis appeals pro se from the district courts orders 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.

Loftis contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his age and medical conditions put him at increased risk of severe complications or death if he contracts COVID-19. The district court, however, considered these factors and concluded that they were insufficient to warrant Loftiss release in light of the danger he poses to the public. Because this conclusion is supported by the record and the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3582(c)(1)(A), the district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying Loftiss motion. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).

Assuming without deciding that Loftiss Eighth Amendment claim may be brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A), Loftis has not shown that his sentence is “grossly disproportionate” to his offenses. See United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1998). To the extent Loftis seeks injunctive relief in the form of a court order directing the Bureau of Prisons to screen him for home confinement, we decline to consider this request, which was raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

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). 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).