Court Opinion

ID: 9366672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:07.655077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.292297
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-30098

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:05-cr-00106-BMM-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TAMMY HALLING,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                    Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Tammy Halling appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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).
      Halling suggests that the district court erred in its application of U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13. The record shows, however, that the district court correctly treated

§ 1B1.13 as advisory. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.

2021).

      Halling further contends that she is entitled to compassionate release and the

district court erred by failing to explain its decision to deny relief. We disagree.

The record reflects that the district court considered Halling’s arguments for

release and adequately explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States,

138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Moreover, in light of the nature of Halling’s offense

and the threat she would pose to the public if released, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors do not

support 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                                     22-30098