United States v. Douglas Hayes ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10273
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00832-HG-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DOUGLAS PATRICK HAYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Patrick Hayes 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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (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).
Hayes contends that the district court effectively treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
as binding when determining whether the need to care for his spouse constituted an
extraordinary and compelling reason for release. The record shows, however, that
the district court properly viewed § 1B1.13 as guidance; the court’s discussion of
considerations identified in the Guideline does not show otherwise. Moreover, the
court recognized its discretion to consider reasons beyond those enumerated in the
Guideline, which comports with Aruda. See 993 F.3d at 801-02. Therefore, the
court did not err in its extraordinary and compelling analysis.
Hayes next contends that the district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors is flawed because it may have been informed by the erroneous
conclusion that extraordinary and compelling circumstances were absent, and
because it failed to account for Hayes’s mitigating arguments. As we explained
above, however, there was no error in the district court’s extraordinary and
compelling analysis. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion by concluding
that, notwithstanding Hayes’s mitigating circumstances, the § 3553(a) sentencing
factors continued to support the sentence imposed. See United States v. Keller, 2
F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). Finally, Hayes’s assertion that the district court
was required to discuss his postsentencing rehabilitation is unavailing. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10273