Court Opinion

ID: 9408153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 18:01:31.465011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:41.881345
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10248

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. Nos. 1:13-cr-00514-SOM-3
                                                          1:13-cr-00653-SOM-1
 v.

JOHN PENITANI,                                  MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                   Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      John Penitani appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

second 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.

      Penitani argues that he is entitled to compassionate release due to (1) his

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
medical conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) misconduct of prior counsel

in connection with his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, (3) the denial of proper medical

and dental care, and (4) the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to consider him for low

security status and to calculate his earned time credits. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in rejecting these arguments. See United States v. Aruda, 993

F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The court acknowledged Penitani’s medical

conditions but reasonably concluded that any increased risk was mitigated by his

recovery from COVID-19, his vaccination, and the low incidence of COVID-19 at

his facility. In addition, the record supports the court’s determination that

Penitani’s remaining arguments were unsupported, were the subject of other

pending actions, or did not otherwise justify release. Finally, the court reasonably

concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against release given

Penitani’s history of violence and the need to protect the public. The court fully

considered Penitani’s arguments and circumstances, and its analysis was logical

and supported by the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213

(9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only where its decision is

illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).

      Penitani’s motions for an injunction “releasing [him] to the clean sober

house” and a sentence reduction, and any other pending requests, are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                       22-10248