USA V. EMIL WOLFGRAMM, JR., No. 21-10162 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-10162 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00877-DKW-1 v. EMIL WOLFGRAMM, JR., MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Emil Wolfgramm, Jr., 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). Accordingly, Wolfgramm’s unopposed motion to expedite submission without oral argument is granted. Wolfgramm contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard because it did not meaningfully apply the standard adopted by this court in Aruda. Wolfgramm also contends that, by treating his vaccination status and the low incidence of COVID-19 cases in his prison as dispositive, the district court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. The record does not support Wolfgramm’s claims. The district court recognized that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 was not binding and applied the proper legal standard in a manner consistent with Aruda. See id. at 802 (“The Sentencing Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not binding.”). Moreover, the district court acknowledged Wolfgramm’s health conditions and considered the totality of his circumstances before reasonably concluding that he lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolfgramm’s motion. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion if its application of the correct legal standard is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). AFFIRMED. 2 21-10162
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
