NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10437
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00459-DKW-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAMOA ULISESE LEFITI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Samoa Ulisese Lefiti 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, and we affirm.
The district court found that Lefiti had shown extraordinary and compelling
*
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). Accordingly, Lefiti’s motion
to expedite submission without oral argument is granted.
reasons for compassionate release, but denied relief on the basis of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. Lefiti argues that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 as binding in violation of United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th
Cir. 2021). Though he acknowledges that the court found in his favor as to
extraordinary and compelling reasons, he contends that reversal is required because
“the court’s adherence to the guideline and its commentary nonetheless adversely
affected its consideration of § 3553(a)’s factors.” We disagree. While the court
focused on the danger Lefiti poses to the public, a consideration specifically
enumerated in § 1B1.13, it also expressly tied its dangerousness analysis to
§ 3553(a)(2)(C), which concerns the need to protect the public. On this record, any
error by the court in relying on § 1B1.13 was harmless. Moreover, contrary to
Lefiti’s arguments, the court correctly evaluated the § 3553(a) factors, considered
the totality of the circumstances, and did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (stating standard of review); United States v.
Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-10437