Opinion
21-10257
03-23-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURTIS K. WONG, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:14-cr-00576-DKW-1 for the District of Hawaii Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Curtis K. Wong 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 the district court's decision for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Contrary to Wong's arguments on appeal, it is not "unclear" whether the district court "placed improper weight" on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The court acknowledged the holding in Aruda that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy statement for compassionate release motions filed by defendants. See 993 F.3d at 802. Moreover, it fully considered all of the arguments Wong asserted in support of his motion. Wong's suggestion that the court's decision may have been "tainted" by its two prior decisions denying compassionate release is unsupported by the record.
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not justify a reduction in Wong's sentence. Given Wong's extensive criminal history, limited employment history, the type and amount of drugs involved in his offense, and his role in the offense, it cannot be said that the court's decision was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).
AFFIRMED.