United States v. Abu Abdul-Latif

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30130
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00228-JLR-1
v.
ABU KHALID ABDUL-LATIF, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Joseph Anthony Davis,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif appeals from the district court’s order denying his
renewed motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Abdul-Latif contends that the district court erred by conflating the two
*
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).
distinct inquires required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)—whether there are extraordinary and
compelling circumstances supporting compassionate release and whether the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support release—into a single invented “totality of
extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard. Abdul-Latif acknowledges that a
district court need not conduct both inquiries if it finds the defendant’s motion
deficient as to one, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021),
but he argues that the court may not combine the two inquiries. Assuming Abdul-
Latif is correct, we disagree that the district court did so here. Although the court
grouped together in a single list all of the factors it had considered, it is evident
which factors were relevant to the extraordinary and compelling reasons prong and
which related to the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the record makes clear that the
court considered all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
found both that extraordinary and compelling circumstances were lacking and that
the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Contrary to Abdul-Latif’s argument,
the court’s explanation is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, see
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018), and it did not
abuse its discretion in denying the motion, see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-30130