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. Gloudina Maria ROBBERTSE, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Gloudina Maria Robbertse appeals from the district court's order denying her 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 vacate and remand.
Robbertse contends that the district court erred under United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021), by relying on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to evaluate whether she had demonstrated the required extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. The district court declined to decide if § 1B1.13 was binding because, in its view, Robbertse's motion sought relief under Application Note 1(A) to § 1B1.13. However, Robbertse did not cite the Guideline in her motion, and Application Note 1 contains requirements that are not mandatory after Aruda. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 n.1(A) (requiring defendant to have a “terminal illness” or a “serious physical or medical condition ․ that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-care within the environment of a correctional facility”). It is unclear to what extent the district court applied those requirements in concluding that Robbertse's release would not be “compatible with the policies of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.” Furthermore, contrary to the government's argument, the district court did not conclude that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief; instead, it referred only to the risk Robbertse poses to the community, which is a consideration specified in the Guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(2); Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799.
Given these indicia that the district court placed improper weight on § 1B1.13, we vacate its order and remand to permit the district court to reassess Robbertse's motion under the standard set forth in Aruda. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802. On remand, the district court should also address Robbertse's argument that, given how infectious diseases like COVID-19 spread in a carceral setting, she is being forced to choose between risking serious illness or death from COVID-19 and refraining from taking the immunosuppressants that she needs to treat her autoimmune disorders.
VACATED and REMANDED.
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. 20-30264
Decided: September 17, 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)