Opinion
21-10271
03-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORALEEN TUISALOO, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00036-DKW-1 Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Coraleen Tuisaloo 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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Tuisaloo contends that the district court abused its discretion by determining that her purported eligibility for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which went unrecognized at sentencing, did not warrant relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Assuming without deciding that Tuisaloo's alleged safety valve eligibility is a proper basis for seeking compassionate release, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a lower sentence even if Tuisaloo had been eligible for safety valve relief. Contrary to Tuisaloo's argument, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its decision, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018), and its § 3553(a) analysis was consistent with the requirements of the compassionate release statute, see 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.