UNITED STATES v. LARSEN (2021)

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

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of Larsen's motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) was affirmed.

Bryan Larsen appealed the district court's denial of his request for sentence reduction under the federal compassionate release statute. Larsen argued that extraordinary and compelling circumstances—including the COVID-19 pandemic and his medical conditions—warranted a shorter sentence. The district court assumed without deciding that such circumstances existed, but then evaluated the sentencing factors and concluded they weighed against reducing his sentence, given the severity of his crimes: he had robbed three banks while armed with a shotgun and handgun, endangered numerous people, and caused lasting trauma to employees.

The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted that the district court was not required to formally address every step of the legal analysis when denying compassionate release. The court emphasized that the seriousness of Larsen's armed robberies, the fact he had served only one-third of his sentence, and the need to reflect the gravity of his crimes and deter similar violence all supported keeping the original sentence in place.

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

Key issues

Whether district court abused discretion in denying compassionate release
Application of § 3553(a) sentencing factors to COVID-19 and medical circumstances
Sufficiency of district court's analysis in denying sentence reduction

Procedural posture

Larsen appealed pro se the district court's denial of his motion for sentence reduction based on compassionate release grounds.

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.