Court Opinion

ID: 9380584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 17:00:52.183693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.295607
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-50180

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:03-cr-01257-RSWL-1

 v.

DANNY FABRICANT, AKA Daniel Joseph MEMORANDUM*
Fabricant, AKA Danny Joseph Fabricant,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Danny Fabricant 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).
      The district court concluded that, even if Fabricant had shown extraordinary

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

Fabricant argues that the district court abused its discretion in reaching this

conclusion because it: relied too heavily on his non-violent criminal history;

erroneously found that his age, health conditions, and release plan would not

preclude him from committing new crimes if he were released; and gave

insufficient weight to his sentencing disparity arguments, including the fact that his

mandatory minimum would be 10 years, rather than life, if he were sentenced

today. Given “the deference we must afford the district court when it makes these

discretionary decisions,” see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284, we cannot conclude that the

district court abused its discretion in finding that Fabricant’s aggravating

circumstances, including his very lengthy—if nonviolent—criminal history,

outweighed the mitigating factors cited by Fabricant. Moreover, although the court

did not address each of Fabricant’s arguments, it adequately explained its decision

to deny relief. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948-53 (9th Cir. 2022).

      In view of this conclusion, we do not reach Fabricant’s arguments regarding

the district court’s extraordinary and compelling analysis. See id. at 948 (if the

district court independently denies relief under § 3553(a), any error in assessing the

other statutory requirements is harmless).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                      21-50180