USA V. JEFF TRASK, No. 20-30105 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED SEP 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-30105 D.C. No. 6:17-cr-00007-SEH-1 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
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.
