NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30105
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 6:17-cr-00007-SEH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFF ALLEN TRASK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jeff Allen Trask 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 denied Trask’s motion because it agreed with the
*
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).
government that Trask had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before
filing the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (a defendant may not file a
compassionate release motion in the district court until “after the defendant has
fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons
to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt
of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, whichever is earlier”).
Trask does not dispute that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, but
asserts that the district court should have excused his failure for equitable reasons.
Trask’s argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282
(9th Cir. 2021) (district court may not excuse a defendant’s failure to exhaust if the
government has raised a timely exhaustion objection because “§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s
administrative exhaustion requirement is mandatory and must be enforced when
properly raised by the government”).
Insofar as Trask contends that the district court erred by denying his motion
for bail pending appeal, his argument is now moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-30105