USA V. GREGORY HOFFMAN, No. 21-10034 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-10034 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00027-GMN-GWF-1 v. GREGORY HOFFMAN, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Gregory Hoffman appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Hoffman contends that the district court erred by treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 * 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). as an applicable policy statement and abused its discretion in concluding that Hoffman’s release would pose a danger to the public. This court recently held that the current version of § 1B1.13 is not binding as applied to § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions brought by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). While the district court appears to have improperly applied § 1B1.13 in assessing Hoffman’s dangerousness, it also found that Hoffman’s release was not warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Given the record before the district court, it did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under § 3553(a). See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799 (stating standard of review); 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); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”). Moreover, the court’s § 3553(a) analysis alone provides a basis to affirm. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). AFFIRMED. 2 21-10034

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.