Court Opinion

ID: 5136109
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-17 21:00:29.978168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:53.455065
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 17 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-30130

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00228-JLR-1

 v.

ABU KHALID ABDUL-LATIF, AKA                     MEMORANDUM*
Joseph Anthony Davis,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Washington
                    James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif appeals from the district court’s order denying his

renewed motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Abdul-Latif contends that the district court erred by conflating the two

      *
             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).
distinct inquires required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)—whether there are extraordinary and

compelling circumstances supporting compassionate release and whether the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support release—into a single invented “totality of

extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard. Abdul-Latif acknowledges that a

district court need not conduct both inquiries if it finds the defendant’s motion

deficient as to one, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021),

but he argues that the court may not combine the two inquiries. Assuming Abdul-

Latif is correct, we disagree that the district court did so here. Although the court

grouped together in a single list all of the factors it had considered, it is evident

which factors were relevant to the extraordinary and compelling reasons prong and

which related to the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the record makes clear that the

court considered all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and

found both that extraordinary and compelling circumstances were lacking and that

the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Contrary to Abdul-Latif’s argument,

the court’s explanation is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, see

Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018), and it did not

abuse its discretion in denying the motion, see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     21-30130