USA V. ABU ABDUL-LATIF, No. 21-30130 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-30130 D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00228-JLR-1 v. ABU KHALID ABDUL-LATIF, AKA Joseph Anthony Davis, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif appeals from the district court’s order denying his renewed 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. Abdul-Latif contends that the district court erred by conflating the two * 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). distinct inquires required by § 3582(c)(1)(A)—whether there are extraordinary and compelling circumstances supporting compassionate release and whether the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors support release—into a single invented “totality of extraordinary and compelling reasons” standard. Abdul-Latif acknowledges that a district court need not conduct both inquiries if it finds the defendant’s motion deficient as to one, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021), but he argues that the court may not combine the two inquiries. Assuming AbdulLatif is correct, we disagree that the district court did so here. Although the court grouped together in a single list all of the factors it had considered, it is evident which factors were relevant to the extraordinary and compelling reasons prong and which related to the § 3553(a) factors. Moreover, the record makes clear that the court considered all of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances and found both that extraordinary and compelling circumstances were lacking and that the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Contrary to Abdul-Latif’s argument, the court’s explanation is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018), and it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1281. AFFIRMED. 2 21-30130
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.
