United States v. Kathy Funtila ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 19 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 20-10441
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:17-cr-00515-LEK-1
    v.
    KATHY FUNTILA, AKA Kathy Retter,                MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Hawaii
    Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 12, 2022**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
    Kathy Funtila appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
    second 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 vacate and remand.
    With respect to Funtila’s first motion for compassionate release, the district
    *
    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).
    court concluded that (1) Funtila had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies,
    but that her failure to exhaust was excused because exhaustion would have been
    futile, and (2) Funtila had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for
    compassionate release under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The court denied Funtila’s
    second compassionate release motion, which it described as “almost identical to
    her first motion,” because she had again failed to provide any extraordinary and
    compelling reasons.
    After the district court issued its orders, we decided United States v. Keller,
    
    2 F.4th 1278
     (9th Cir. 2021) and United States v. Aruda, 
    993 F.3d 799
     (9th Cir.
    2021). Because the district court did not have the benefit of these decisions when
    it reviewed Funtila’s motions, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for
    the district court to reassess Funtila’s motion under the standards set forth in those
    opinions.
    We offer no view of the merits of Funtila’s request for compassionate
    release.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                    20-10441
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-10441

Filed Date: 7/19/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/19/2022