USA V. ISRAEL WASHINGTON, No. 21-10017 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-10017 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00206-MCE-1 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
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.
