UNITED STATES v. HOFFMAN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-27No. No. 21-10034

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Hoffman's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's conclusion that relief was not warranted under the applicable statutory factors.

Gregory Hoffman sought compassionate release from his sentence under federal law, arguing the district court wrongly applied sentencing guidelines and misjudged the danger he posed to the public. Although the appellate court agreed that the district court improperly relied on certain guidelines, the court found that the district court's analysis under the applicable statutory factors—which examine the nature of the offense and public safety concerns—was reasonable and supported by the record. The appellate court therefore upheld the denial of Hoffman's compassionate release request based on the district court's proper alternative reasoning.

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

Key issues

Whether sentencing guidelines apply to compassionate release motions
Standard for abuse of discretion in denying compassionate release
Whether defendant's release would pose a danger to the public

Procedural posture

Hoffman appealed the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under federal law.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Hoffman appeals from the district courts order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hoffman contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement and abused its discretion in concluding that Hoffmans release would pose a danger to the public. This court recently held that the current version of § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). While the district court appears to have improperly applied § 1B1.13 in assessing Hoffmans dangerousness, it also found that Hoffmans release was not warranted under 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. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Given the record before the district court, it did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under § 3553(a). See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (stating standard of review); United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the courts § 3553(a) analysis alone provides a basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).

AFFIRMED.