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. Jose Alberto ABUNDIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Jose Alberto Abundiz appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and his motion for appointment of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
As an initial matter, the government contends that venue was improper in the district court. We disagree. In light of Abundiz's pro se status and the arguments raised in his motion, the court permissibly construed his motion as a request for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, his motion was properly filed in the Eastern District of Washington, where he was sentenced.
We also conclude that the court did not err by denying Abundiz's motion to appoint counsel. Abundiz does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel on a § 3582(c) motion, see United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996), and the district court reasonably denied appointment given the nature and brevity of Abundiz's request.
Turning to the merits of his motion, Abundiz contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement and abused its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. We need not reach the § 1B1.13 question because the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Abundiz's motion under § 3553(a), which provides an independent basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). The record reflects that the court considered Abundiz's medical condition and arguments for release, but reasonably concluded that the § 3553(a) factors, including Abundiz's history and characteristics and the need for deterrence, did not warrant compassionate release.
Finally, the district court did not err by denying Abundiz's motion with prejudice. Contrary to Abundiz's assertion, the denial with prejudice does not preclude him from filing another motion under § 3582(c)(1)(A) should his circumstances change.
AFFIRMED.
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. 20-30171
Decided: August 26, 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)