Court Opinion

ID: 9399976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 22:01:05.835775+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.319792
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 6 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.      22-10154

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES HEAD,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Charles Head appeals from the district court’s 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v.

Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

      *
             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).
      Head contends that the district court erroneously determined that he lacked

extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief. As Head concedes, however, the

district court assumed without deciding that he made such a showing, and denied

the motion based solely on its conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did

not support relief. The district court’s analysis was not improper. See Keller, 2

F.4th at 1284 (a district court may properly deny compassionate release on the

basis of the § 3553(a) factors alone).

      Head further contends that the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release

because his criminal history score has been lowered, his prison disciplinary history

has been insignificant and his rehabilitative efforts extensive, and his sentence is

much longer than those of his codefendants. We disagree. The district court did

not abuse its discretion in concluding that, even though Head had made

rehabilitative efforts and did not present a danger to the community, the nature and

circumstances of his offenses, his unique leadership role in the two conspiracies,

and the time remaining on his below-Guidelines sentence did not support

compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also United States v.

Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (the district court abuses its

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the

record).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-10154