UNITED STATES v. BALERO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-22No. Nos. 20-10365, 20-10370

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Balero's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's application of sentencing factors.

Edwin William Balero sought compassionate release from his prison sentence under federal law, arguing that his medical conditions and facility conditions placed him at heightened risk from COVID-19 and that he posed minimal reoffense risk. The district court rejected his motion, and Balero appealed without counsel. On review, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision, which properly weighed the nature of Balero's offense, the need for deterrence, and public safety concerns when evaluating his request under the relevant sentencing factors.

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

Key issues

Whether medical conditions and facility conditions qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release
Proper application of sentencing factors in evaluating compassionate release requests
Standard of review for district court discretion in compassionate release decisions

Procedural posture

Balero appealed pro se from the district court's denial of his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Edwin William Balero appeals pro se 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.

Balero contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions and the conditions at his facility subject him to a greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and because he is unlikely to reoffend.

The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021). The record reflects that the court considered Baleros medical conditions and arguments for release, but reasonably determined that release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need for deterrence and to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (C). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”). Because the district courts § 3553(a) analysis provides an adequate basis to affirm, we need not address Baleros argument that his medical conditions qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. On appeal, Balero presents new information regarding more recent conditions at his facility. We have confined our review to the record before the district court. See Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2015). However, even if we were to consider the new information presented on appeal, it would not alter our decision.