Court Opinion

ID: 9375049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 19:00:45.732142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.467066
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-30118

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 6:11-cr-00020-BMM-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
THEODORE CASTINE,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Theodore Castine 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).
      Castine contends that the district court abused its discretion by

(1) concluding that his age and medical conditions, together with the ongoing

threat from COVID-19, did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for

compassionate release, and (2) denying relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) without

any analysis. We disagree. The district court acknowledged Castine’s age and

health conditions, but reasonably concluded that Castine’s vaccination mitigated

the risk. Moreover, contrary to Castine’s argument, the court adequately analyzed

the § 3553(a) factors, reasonably concluding a reduction in Castine’s below-

Guidelines sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense or

provide just punishment. This explanation was sufficient, see Chavez-Meza v.

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court is not required to “tick off” each of the

§ 3553(a) factors), and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief, 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 not supported

by the record).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-30118