United States v. Theodore Castine ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-30118
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 6:11-cr-00020-BMM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THEODORE CASTINE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Theodore Castine 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Castine contends that the district court abused its discretion by
(1) concluding that his age and medical conditions, together with the ongoing
threat from COVID-19, did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for
compassionate release, and (2) denying relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) without
any analysis. We disagree. The district court acknowledged Castine’s age and
health conditions, but reasonably concluded that Castine’s vaccination mitigated
the risk. Moreover, contrary to Castine’s argument, the court adequately analyzed
the § 3553(a) factors, reasonably concluding a reduction in Castine’s below-
Guidelines sentence would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offense or
provide just punishment. This explanation was sufficient, see Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,
992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (district court is not required to “tick off” each of the
§ 3553(a) factors), and the court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief, see
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.
2 22-30118