United States v. Joseph Loftis ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30165
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00011-DLC-1
v.
JOSEPH BRENT LOFTIS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Brent Loftis appeals pro se from the district court’s orders 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.
Loftis contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his age
*
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).
and medical conditions put him at increased risk of severe complications or death
if he contracts COVID-19. The district court, however, considered these factors
and concluded that they were insufficient to warrant Loftis’s release in light of the
danger he poses to the public. Because this conclusion is supported by the record
and the statutory sentencing factors, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3582(c)(1)(A), the
district court did not abuse its discretion1 by denying Loftis’s motion. See United
States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record).
Assuming without deciding that Loftis’s Eighth Amendment claim may be
brought under § 3582(c)(1)(A), Loftis has not shown that his sentence is “grossly
disproportionate” to his offenses. See United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082,
1084 (9th Cir. 1998). To the extent Loftis seeks injunctive relief in the form of a
court order directing the Bureau of Prisons to screen him for home confinement,
we decline to consider this request, which was raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
1
The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the government’s
undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
2 20-30165