Court Opinion

ID: 9380606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 18:00:30.744246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.445895
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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. 22-10129

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:20-cr-00122-DKW-1

 v.

PATRICK OPUNUI Jr.,                             MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                   Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

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

      Patrick Opunui Jr. 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). 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).
      Opunui contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his pre-

existing medical conditions were exacerbated by a prior COVID-19 infection and

the Bureau of Prisons has not provided—and is incapable of providing—adequate

medical care. The record does not support this contention. Opunui did not show

that his medical conditions were being inadequately managed by prison staff or

were exacerbated by his COVID-19 infection; indeed, he had been vaccinated

against COVID-19, he was offered a booster, and he was asymptomatic when he

was infected. On this record, the district did not abuse its discretion in concluding

that Opunui lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See 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).

      Insofar as Opunui contends that the district court should have considered his

post-sentencing rehabilitation, he has not shown what rehabilitative steps he has

taken. Moreover, in light of Opunui’s offense conduct and criminal history, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors weighed against release.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-10129