United States v. Sherease Latin ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10173
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00514-JMS-3
v.
SHEREASE ANTIONETTE LATIN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Sherease Antionette Latin 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. 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). Latin’s request for oral
argument is, therefore, denied.
The district court concluded that, even if Latin had shown extraordinary and
compelling circumstances, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief.
Latin argues that the district court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion
because: she was only a minor participant in the drug conspiracy and her conduct
was non-violent, her criminal history is overstated, she needs only a five-year
sentence to be rehabilitated, she has made positive changes in her life and will not
recidivate, and there is a need to correct the disparity between her sentence and
those of other defendants. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that, notwithstanding Latin’s mitigating factors, reducing her sentence
would “severely undermine the goals of sentencing” given her offense conduct and
“significant and troubling” criminal history. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also
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).
In light of this conclusion, we need not consider Latin’s arguments
concerning the district court’s analysis of her asserted extraordinary and
compelling circumstances. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948 (9th Cir.
2022) (any error in the district court’s extraordinary and compelling analysis is
harmless “if the court properly relied on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors
as an alternative basis for its holding”).
2 22-10173
Latin’s claim that the district court erred by failing to appoint counsel is
unavailing because Latin does not have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel when
filing a motion under § 3582(c). See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-
13 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, as Latin acknowledges, the Federal Public
Defender’s office reviewed her file for possible representation but declined
appointment.
Finally, Latin argues that the district court erred by deciding her motion
prior to receiving her reply to the government’s opposition. Even if the court
erred, however, Latin cannot show she was prejudiced because the court reviewed
her supplemental filings and concluded they did not change its conclusion that she
was not entitled to compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.
3 22-10173