United States v. Quincy Leafstedt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30198
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG-1
v.
QUINCY NOLANCE LEAFSTEDT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Quincy Nolance Leafstedt appeals from the district court’s orders denying
his motion for compassionate release 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and two
subsequent motions for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, 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).
The district court assumed that Leafstedt’s medical conditions, in
combination with the threat from COVID-19, established an “extraordinary and
compelling” reason to grant relief. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). However, it
denied compassionate release under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider applicable § 3553(a) factors).
Leafstedt contends that the court inappropriately weighed the factors by giving
insufficient consideration to the conditions at Leafstedt’s prison and the risk to the
public if there were an outbreak there, his medical vulnerabilities, and his
substantial rehabilitation while in prison and lack of prior criminal history.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Aruda,
993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). It considered Leafstedt’s offense conduct,
which included the possession of thousands of images and dozens of videos of
pornographic materials involving children, and reasonably concluded that, because
Leafstedt had not completed any sex offender treatment or other rehabilitative
programming specific to child pornography offenders, a reduced sentence was not
appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Furthermore, contrary to
Leafstedt’s argument, the court reasonably concluded that Leafstedt was a greater
risk to the public on home confinement, where in-person monitoring by probation
would be hampered by the pandemic, than in prison.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-30198