United States v. Donald Foreman ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 22 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-30119
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 9:14-cr-00042-DLC-2
    v.
    DONALD ROSS FOREMAN,                            MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 14, 2021**
    Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Donald Ross Foreman appeals from the district court’s order denying his
    motion for compassionate release pursuant to 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(1)(A)(i). We
    have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for abuse of discretion, see
    United States v. Aruda, 
    993 F.3d 797
    , 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and 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).
    Foreman asserts that he is entitled to compassionate release in light of his
    medical conditions and because the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors weigh in favor of
    release. Contrary to Foreman’s contention, the record reflects that the district court
    properly considered each of his arguments for release, including the conditions at
    his facility, the public health concerns generally posed by the COVID-19
    pandemic, and the seriousness of his medical conditions. The court concluded,
    however, that Foreman’s medical conditions were already accounted for in his
    below-Guidelines sentence and that early release would “denigrate the seriousness
    of his offense” and was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. The court’s
    conclusion was reasonable in light of the record, and it did not abuse its discretion
    in 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 without support in the record).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    21-30119
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-30119

Filed Date: 12/22/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2021