NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10017
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00206-MCE-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ISRAEL WASHINGTON, AKA Puck,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Israel Washington 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 for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
Washington contends that the district court erred by relying on U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 as an applicable policy statement in contravention of our holding in
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). Though the record
supports this claim, any error was harmless because the court concluded that—
regardless of whether Washington had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
reasons for release—it would deny Washington’s motion under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (a district court may deny compassionate
release based on the § 3553(a) factors alone).
Washington argues that the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis is insufficient
to support the denial of relief because it was “cursory” and did not reflect that the
court actually weighed the sentencing factors. However, the district court
explained that it agreed with the government’s § 3553(a) analysis, and the record
as a whole makes clear why the court believed the § 3553(a) factors did not
support relief. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en
banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Washington’s
motion. 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
not supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10017