UNITED STATES v. HELM (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-08-26No. No. 21-30003

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's denial of compassionate release, concluding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Helm's motion despite recognizing extraordinary and compelling reasons, because his criminal history, personal characteristics, and remaining sentence did not support release under the relevant statutory factors.

Joshua Lee Helm sought early release from his prison sentence under the federal compassionate release statute, arguing that his medical conditions put him at serious risk during the COVID-19 pandemic, that he was not receiving adequate medical care, and that he posed no threat to public safety. The district court acknowledged that Helm's health issues were extraordinary and compelling circumstances but nevertheless denied his request after considering factors related to his background, criminal history, and the substantial time he still had to serve. On appeal, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision and upheld the denial.

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

Key issues

Whether medical vulnerability to COVID-19 alone justifies compassionate release
Proper application of sentencing factors after finding extraordinary circumstances
Scope of issues reviewable in compassionate release appeals

Procedural posture

Helm appealed pro se from the district court's order denying 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 **

Joshua Lee Helm 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. We review for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

Helm contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions subject him to a greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19, he is receiving inadequate medical care, and he does not pose a danger to the community. The district court agreed with Helm that his medical issues constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting his release but denied relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Given the record before the court, it did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Helms history and characteristics, as well as the substantial time remaining on his sentence, did not support release. See 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 without support in the record); see also United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (court may deny compassionate release based on its § 3553(a) analysis alone).

We do not reach Helms remaining arguments, many of which concern issues beyond the scope of a compassionate release motion, because they were not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). To the extent Helm argues that the district court relied on clearly erroneous facts regarding his offense conduct and criminal history, the record does not support his argument.

Helms motions for “reconsideration for compassionate release” are denied.

AFFIRMED.