Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo M. RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Pablo M. Rivera 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.
Rivera contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and that the district court concluded otherwise based on an improper weighing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The district court did not abuse its discretion.1 The record 2 belies Rivera's contention that the district court treated as dispositive the length of time that Rivera has served in custody. While the court noted how much time remained on Rivera's sentence, it also considered the conditions at Rivera's prison, Rivera's medical conditions and other mitigating arguments, and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Having considered all of this information, it did not abuse its discretion in concluding that relief was unwarranted in light of the serious nature of the offense, and the need to deter and protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court may consider the § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)-(C). Moreover, contrary to Rivera's argument, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).
Because the record belies Rivera's argument that the district court relied on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to deny relief, we do not reach Rivera's arguments concerning that guideline.
To the extent Rivera argues that his continued incarceration violates the Eighth Amendment, and assuming without deciding that this claim may be brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A), Rivera has not shown that his sentence is “grossly disproportionate” to his offense. See United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082, 1084 (9th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The parties agree that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which we accept for purposes of this appeal.
2. We have confined our review to the record before the district court. See Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2015). Even if we were to consider the new information presented by Rivera on appeal, it would not affect the outcome of this case.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 20-10214
Decided: April 28, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)