UNITED STATES v. ALVARADO (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-03-25No. No. 20-30186

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Alvarado's motion for compassionate release was affirmed because the court did not abuse its discretion in weighing his age, medical conditions, and rehabilitative efforts against the statutory sentencing factors.

Tomas Alvarado sought early release from his prison sentence under the compassionate release statute, citing his age, medical conditions that put him at elevated risk from COVID-19, his good institutional conduct and participation in rehabilitation programs, and a viable release plan. The district court rejected his petition, and Alvarado appealed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision, as the lower court properly weighed his circumstances against the statutory factors required for compassionate release, particularly the nature of his offense and public safety concerns.

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

Key issues

Whether age and medical vulnerability to COVID-19 warrant compassionate release
Application of sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to compassionate release motions
Standard of review for denying compassionate release petitions

Procedural posture

Alvarado 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 **

Tomas Alvarado 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.

Alvarado contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because (1) his age and various medical conditions increase his risk of severe illness or death should he contract COVID-19; (2) he has taken advantage of rehabilitative programs and not had any disciplinary infractions while in prison; and (3) he has a “solid release plan.” The district court did not abuse its discretion.

The record reflects that the district court considered Alvarados medical conditions, age, and mitigating arguments. However, the court reasonably determined that relief was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Moreover, contrary to Alvarados argument, the district 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.”).

We do not reach Alvarados remaining arguments, which are beyond the scope of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the governments undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).