Court Opinion

ID: 9396444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 17:01:45.942311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:17.020372
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10173

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00514-JMS-3

 v.

SHEREASE ANTIONETTE LATIN,                      MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                  J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 16, 2023**

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

      Sherease Antionette Latin 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). Latin’s request for oral
argument is, therefore, denied.
      The district court concluded that, even if Latin had shown extraordinary and

compelling circumstances, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief.

Latin argues that the district court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion

because: she was only a minor participant in the drug conspiracy and her conduct

was non-violent, her criminal history is overstated, she needs only a five-year

sentence to be rehabilitated, she has made positive changes in her life and will not

recidivate, and there is a need to correct the disparity between her sentence and

those of other defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that, notwithstanding Latin’s mitigating factors, reducing her sentence

would “severely undermine the goals of sentencing” given her offense conduct and

“significant and troubling” criminal history. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also

United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court

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

by the record).

      In light of this conclusion, we need not consider Latin’s arguments

concerning the district court’s analysis of her asserted extraordinary and

compelling circumstances. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948 (9th Cir.

2022) (any error in the district court’s extraordinary and compelling analysis is

harmless “if the court properly relied on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors

as an alternative basis for its holding”).

                                             2                                   22-10173
      Latin’s claim that the district court erred by failing to appoint counsel is

unavailing because Latin does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel when

filing a motion under § 3582(c). See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-

13 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, as Latin acknowledges, the Federal Public

Defender’s office reviewed her file for possible representation but declined

appointment.

      Finally, Latin argues that the district court erred by deciding her motion

prior to receiving her reply to the government’s opposition. Even if the court

erred, however, Latin cannot show she was prejudiced because the court reviewed

her supplemental filings and concluded they did not change its conclusion that she

was not entitled to compassionate release.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                     22-10173