United States v. Patrick Opunui, Jr. ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10129
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:20-cr-00122-DKW-1
v.
PATRICK OPUNUI Jr., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Patrick Opunui Jr. appeals pro se 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).
Opunui contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his pre-
existing medical conditions were exacerbated by a prior COVID-19 infection and
the Bureau of Prisons has not provided—and is incapable of providing—adequate
medical care. The record does not support this contention. Opunui did not show
that his medical conditions were being inadequately managed by prison staff or
were exacerbated by his COVID-19 infection; indeed, he had been vaccinated
against COVID-19, he was offered a booster, and he was asymptomatic when he
was infected. On this record, the district did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that Opunui lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. See United
States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the
record).
Insofar as Opunui contends that the district court should have considered his
post-sentencing rehabilitation, he has not shown what rehabilitative steps he has
taken. Moreover, in light of Opunui’s offense conduct and criminal history, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors weighed against release.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-10129