United States v. Donald Foreman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 22, 2021
• Docket: 21-30119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30119

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:14-cr-00042-DLC-2

v.

DONALD ROSS FOREMAN, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Donald Ross Foreman appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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). Foreman asserts that he is entitled to compassionate release in light of his

medical conditions and because the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of

release. Contrary to Foreman’s contention, the record reflects that the district court

properly considered each of his arguments for release, including the conditions at

his facility, the public health concerns generally posed by the COVID-19

pandemic, and the seriousness of his medical conditions. The court concluded,

however, that Foreman’s medical conditions were already accounted for in his

below-Guidelines sentence and that early release would “denigrate the seriousness

of his offense” and was not warranted under the § 3553(a) factors. The court’s

conclusion was reasonable in light of the record, and it did not abuse its discretion

in denying relief. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,

implausible, or without support in the record).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-30119