Court Opinion

ID: 9408171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:00:47.866884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.374500
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 11 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30108

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:18-cr-00072-DCN-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAMES CLIFFORD GOODWIN III,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Idaho
                     David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      James Clifford Goodwin III appeals pro se from the district court’s order

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

following this court’s remand. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799

      *
             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).
(9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

      Goodwin argues that he is entitled to compassionate release in light of the

need to care for his aging father, his medical conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic,

and the conditions of his incarceration. The district court did not, as Goodwin

contends, misapply U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Rather, the district court expressly

recognized that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 is not binding. Consistent with Aruda, the court

relied on the guideline only to inform and guide its decision. See Aruda, 993 F.3d

at 802. The court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Goodwin’s

difficult family circumstances, medical conditions, and other arguments were not

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See id. at 799.

      The record also reflects that the court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors and reasonably determined that they provided a “secondary reason” to deny

the motion. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). The

court’s conclusion that Goodwin poses a danger to the public is supported by the

nature and circumstances of his offense and criminal history. See United States v.

Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).

      Goodwin’s argument that the district judge has a conflict of interest is

unsupported by the record.1

      AFFIRMED.

1
      Contrary to Goodwin’s suggestion, the answering brief was timely.

                                         2                                       22-30108