UNITED STATES v. HERRERA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-29No. No. 20-50213

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Herrera's compassionate release motion, finding no abuse of discretion.

Herrera sought early release from prison under the compassionate release statute, arguing that extraordinary and compelling reasons justified reducing his sentence. The district court denied his motion, and Herrera appealed, contending that the court relied on factual errors and failed to properly weigh his age and medical conditions.

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision. Although the lower court had repeated a calculation error from the presentence investigation report regarding drug quantities, this mistake was immaterial because the correct amount would have produced the same maximum offense level under sentencing guidelines. The court also rejected Herrera's comparison to his sister's sentence, noting that her subsequent transfer to home confinement did not alter her initial sentence. The district court properly considered Herrera's age and health issues but reasonably concluded that the statutory sentencing factors supported denying compassionate release.

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

Key issues

Whether a factual error in drug quantity calculations undermines a compassionate release denial
Whether a defendant's medical conditions and age require compassionate release
What constitutes an abuse of discretion in applying sentencing factors to compassionate release motions

Procedural posture

Herrera appealed from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Cenobio Humberto Herrera, Sr., 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

Contrary to Herreras arguments, the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous material facts. Although the district court repeated a calculation error from the presentence report regarding the amount of drugs involved in Herreras offense, the mistake was of no consequence because even the correct amount would have triggered the maximum offense level in the Guidelines, which was the concern of the court. The district court also accurately stated that Herreras sister received a similar sentence, even if the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) had subsequently transferred her to home confinement. See United States v. Earl, 729 F.3d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (observing that a defendant “remains in BOPs legal custody” while on home confinement).

The district court considered Herreras age and medical conditions and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors weighed against release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors on a motion for compassionate release); 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).

AFFIRMED.