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. Yvonne CAITANO, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Yvonne Caitano appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Initially, the government is correct that Caitano's appeal from the order denying her motion for compassionate release is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). Caitano's motion for reconsideration did not toll the deadline to file a notice of appeal because it was not filed within the requisite 14-day period. See United States v. Lefler, 880 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1989).
Caitano contends that the district court should have granted reconsideration because the evidence she submitted in support of her original motion, together with the allegedly new evidence she submitted in support of her motion for reconsideration, showed that her medical conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. However, even if Caitano's allegedly new evidence as to her medical conditions was sufficient to meet the “extraordinary and compelling” standard of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the district court was correct that her motion for reconsideration did not address the court's independent finding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Moreover, any challenge to that finding would have been unavailing because the court reasonably weighed the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that, notwithstanding Caitano's health issues and COVID-19 diagnosis, her immediate release would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter similar criminal conduct, or protect the public. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caitano's motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record).
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. 21-10041
Decided: September 20, 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)