Opinion
20-10437
07-26-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SAMOA ULISESE LEFITI, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:15-cr-00459-DKW-1 for the District of Hawaii Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Lefiti's motion to expedite submission without oral argument is granted.
Samoa Ulisese Lefiti 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, and we affirm.
The district court found that Lefiti had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release, but denied relief on the basis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Lefiti argues that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in violation of United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). Though he acknowledges that the court found in his favor as to extraordinary and compelling reasons, he contends that reversal is required because "the court's adherence to the guideline and its commentary nonetheless adversely affected its consideration of § 3553(a)'s factors." We disagree. While the court focused on the danger Lefiti poses to the public, a consideration specifically enumerated in § 1B1.13, it also expressly tied its dangerousness analysis to § 3553(a)(2)(C), which concerns the need to protect the public. On this record, any error by the court in relying on § 1B1.13 was harmless. Moreover, contrary to Lefiti's arguments, the court correctly evaluated the § 3553(a) factors, considered the totality of the circumstances, and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (stating standard of review); 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 without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.