UNITED STATES v. TRASK (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-16No. No. 20-30105

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Trask's compassionate release motion because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by statute, and courts lack authority to excuse this mandatory requirement when the government timely raises it.

Jeff Allen Trask sought compassionate release from his sentence under federal law, but the district court rejected his request because he had not completed the required administrative process beforehand. Trask acknowledged he failed to follow this mandatory step but asked the court to overlook the problem based on fairness considerations. The appeals court determined that the law does not permit courts to waive the administrative exhaustion requirement when the government properly objects to its omission. The court also found that Trask's separate argument about bail pending appeal was no longer relevant to the case.

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

Key issues

Whether a defendant must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking compassionate release
Whether courts may excuse failure to exhaust administrative remedies for equitable reasons
The mandatory nature of the statutory exhaustion requirement

Procedural posture

Trask appealed the district court's denial of his compassionate release motion and his motion for bail pending appeal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jeff Allen Trask 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.

The district court denied Trasks motion because it agreed with the government that Trask had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (a defendant may not file a compassionate release motion in the district court until “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendants behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendants facility, whichever is earlier”). Trask does not dispute that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, but asserts that the district court should have excused his failure for equitable reasons. Trasks argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may not excuse a defendants failure to exhaust if the government has raised a timely exhaustion objection because “§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s administrative exhaustion requirement is mandatory and must be enforced when properly raised by the government”).

Insofar as Trask contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for bail pending appeal, his argument is now moot.

AFFIRMED.