UNITED STATES v. IDADA (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Elvis Henry Idada 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 did not err in its denial of Idada's motion.¹ First, the record reflects that the district court considered the general conditions at FMC-Devens, but reasonably concluded that Idada failed to demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for release in light of his good health. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Contrary to Idada's argument, the district court also properly considered the nature of his offense and reasonably denied relief on those grounds as well.² See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors on a motion for compassionate release). Finally, the record belies Idada's assertion that the district court treated him more harshly because his underlying offense targeted lawyers.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The parties dispute whether an abuse of discretion or de novo standard of review applies. We need not address this dispute as our conclusion is the same under either standard.

2.   We do not reach whether the court properly considered victim impact statements because the district court stated that its ruling would be the same in the absence of the statements.