UNITED STATES v. LARSEN (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Larsen's motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1), finding no abuse of discretion where the sentencing factors weighed against compassionate release despite the COVID-19 pandemic and Larsen's medical conditions.

Bryan Larsen, representing himself, appealed a district court's refusal to reduce his sentence under the federal compassionate release statute. The district court had assumed without definitively finding that extraordinary and compelling circumstances existed, then proceeded to analyze relevant sentencing factors and determined they did not support a reduction. The appellate court found no error in this approach and upheld the denial, noting that Larsen's crimes—armed robberies of multiple banks using firearms and endangering numerous people—were serious offenses whose gravity weighed against early release.

The court concluded the district court properly considered sentencing factors including the nature of Larsen's offenses, his background, and the purposes of sentencing. Although Larsen raised his COVID-19 exposure risks and medical conditions, these circumstances did not outweigh the seriousness of his conduct or the need to reflect the gravity of armed robbery, deter similar crimes, protect the public, and maintain consistency with sentences imposed on others convicted of comparable violent offenses. Larsen's having completed only about one-third of his sentence further supported denying the reduction request.

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)
Whether district court must sequentially evaluate all steps before denying compassionate release
Application of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to armed robbery involving multiple banks and weapons
Weight given to COVID-19 and medical conditions versus seriousness of violent crime and public safety

Procedural posture

Larsen appealed pro se the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) to the appellate court, which reviews such denials for abuse of discretion.

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.