UNITED STATES v. MAK (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-19No. No. 20-50171

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Mak's motion for compassionate release was affirmed.

Chi Mak appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under federal law. Mak argued that the district court made a legal error by not explicitly addressing all the required factors and that the court abused its discretion in weighing those factors against him. The appellate court rejected both arguments, finding that the law does not require a district court to discuss each factor individually and that the district court provided sufficient reasoning supported by the record for its decision.

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

Key issues

Whether district courts must explicitly address all statutory factors in compassionate release decisions
Whether the district court abused its discretion in weighing sentencing factors against release
Standard of review for compassionate release denials

Procedural posture

Mak appealed the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) to the appellate court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Chi Mak appeals the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

Mak contends, first, that the district court legally erred by denying his motion for compassionate release without addressing each of the enumerated factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and second, that the district court abused its discretion in determining that the seriousness of his offense, his character, and the need for his sentence tipped the balance of the § 3553(a) factors against granting his motion for release. We disagree.

First, the legal standard for compassionate release does not require the district court to recite each of the provisions of § 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (stating that district courts must consider “the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable” (emphasis added)); cf. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (“The district court need not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them.”).

Second, while Mak may disagree with how the district court balanced the § 3553(a) factors, there is no basis for us to conclude the district court abused its discretion. The district court fully explained its reasons for reaching its conclusion, which is supported by the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). Further, we find no error in the district courts determination that the balance of the § 3553(a) factors weigh against Maks release. This determination is a sufficient basis to affirm the district courts denial of Maks motion for compassionate release. In light of this determination, we need not address Maks contention that the district court erred in finding he had not shown “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warranting his release. United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.