UNITED STATES v. GOULDING (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-22No. No. 20-10399

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's orders denying Goulding's motion for compassionate release and his subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Frankie Thomas Goulding appealed the district court's denial of his request for compassionate release under federal law, which allows prisoners to seek sentence reduction in extraordinary circumstances. Goulding filed a motion for reconsideration after the initial denial, but this motion came too late to extend his deadline to appeal. Although the district court may have misapplied one legal standard by treating a particular guideline as mandatory rather than advisory, this error did not require reversal because the court separately evaluated the case using the correct legal framework—the statutory sentencing factors—and properly exercised its discretion in that analysis.

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

Key issues

Whether Goulding's appeal was timely filed
Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard in evaluating compassionate release
Whether the district court properly weighed statutory sentencing factors in denying relief

Procedural posture

Goulding appealed pro se from district court orders denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and a subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Frankie Thomas Goulding appeals pro se from the district courts orders denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Initially, the government is correct that Gouldings appeal from the order denying his motion for compassionate release is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Gouldings motion for reconsideration did not toll the deadline to file a notice of appeal because it was not filed within the requisite 14-day period. See United States v. Lefler, 880 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1989).

We review the district courts order denying reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 2004). Goulding contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as the applicable policy statement. While the district court appears to have treated § 1B1.13 as binding in violation of United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021), the error does not warrant remand because the district court also denied reconsideration after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court can deny compassionate release on the basis of the § 3553(a) factors alone). Contrary to Gouldings argument, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous findings related to the length or consecutive nature of his sentence, see United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010), and it did not abuse its discretion in weighing the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284. We do not reach Gouldings remaining arguments related to the reconsideration order because they do not raise any error in the courts § 3553(a) analysis.

We deny Gouldings renewed request for a limited remand and deny as unnecessary his requests for judicial notice.

AFFIRMED.