UNITED STATES v. LOWE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-26No. No. 21-30014

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of Lowe's motion for compassionate release, finding no abuse of discretion in the lower court's reasoned balancing of the statutory factors and public safety concerns.

Danny Ray Lowe sought compassionate release from his prison sentence under federal law, arguing that the COVID-19 outbreak at his facility combined with his serious health conditions warranted early release. He contended that letting him go would align with the statutory factors courts must consider in sentencing decisions. The district court rejected his request, finding that the danger Lowe posed to the public—inadequately addressed by his proposed release plan—and his recovery from COVID-19 together justified keeping him incarcerated.

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

Key issues

Whether COVID-19 outbreak and inmate's medical vulnerabilities warrant compassionate release
Whether proposed release plan adequately mitigates public safety risk
Standard of review for abuse of discretion in compassionate release decisions

Procedural posture

Lowe appealed the district court's denial of his § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) compassionate release motion to the appellate court.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Danny Ray Lowe 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, and we affirm.

Lowe argues that he is entitled to release given the COVID-19 outbreak at his prison and his high-risk medical conditions, and that his release would be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court considered these arguments, but concluded that the risk Lowe poses to the public, which was not significantly mitigated by his release plan, and his recovery from COVID-19 weighed against release. Because the record supports this conclusion, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lowes motion. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); 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). Moreover, the record does not support Lowes contention that the district court believed it was constrained by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802.

The governments motion to supplement the record is granted. Lowes motion to strike the exhibit at Docket Entry No. 15-2 is denied. However, the Clerk will maintain under seal the motion and exhibit at Docket Entry No. 15.

AFFIRMED.