UNITED STATES v. LARSEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-06No. No. 20-50322

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Larsen's motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), finding no legal error or abuse of discretion.

Bryan Larsen, proceeding without counsel, challenged the district court's rejection of his request for sentence reduction under the federal compassionate release statute. Larsen argued that extraordinary and compelling circumstances—specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and his medical conditions—warranted a shorter sentence. The district court assumed such circumstances existed but determined that considering the factors related to sentencing purposes, a reduction was not appropriate.

The appellate court upheld the denial. The court explained that a district judge need not formally analyze every statutory factor when denying compassionate release, only when granting it. More importantly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the judge's conclusion that the nature of Larsen's crimes—armed robberies of three banks using shotguns and handguns, endangering numerous lives and traumatizing victims—weighed decisively against reduction. Early release would undermine the sentencing statute's goals of reflecting offense severity, deterring violent crime, and maintaining consistency in criminal sentences.

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

Key issues

Standard of review for compassionate release denials under § 3582(c)(1)
Sequential analysis required when granting versus denying compassionate release
Whether COVID-19 pandemic and medical conditions constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons
Application of § 3553(a) sentencing factors to armed bank robbery convictions

Procedural posture

Larsen appealed pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Bryan Larsen appeals pro se the district courts denial of his motion for a reduction of sentence/compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). The parties are familiar with the facts so we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam).

The district court did not commit legal error in assuming without deciding that there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a reduction in Larsens sentence and going on to “consider[ ] the factors set forth in section 3553(a).” 18 U.SC. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (holding that “although a district court must perform this sequential inquiry before it grants compassionate release, a district court that properly denies compassionate release need not evaluate each step”).

Neither did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that the Section 3553(a) factors weighed against a reduced sentence despite the COVID pandemic and Larsens medical conditions. The district court explained that Larsens crimes were very serious and troubling as he “robbed three different banks,” “us[ed] a double-barreled shotgun ․ and what appeared to be a handgun,” “put numerous lives in danger,” and “terrified [bank] employees and traumatized them for the rest of their lives.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (providing that factors to be considered include “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”). The district court also noted that releasing Larsen after he had only served a third of his sentence would not advance the goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) because early release would not reflect the seriousness of Larsens crimes, deter him and other from committing armed robberies or similar crimes of violence, protect the public, or avoid sentencing disparities with others who have been sentenced for similar crimes. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (affirming a denial of compassionate release where the movant remained a danger to others, committed multiple federal crimes, and had served less than half of his sentence).

AFFIRMED.