United States v. Yvonne Caitano ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10041
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00167-HG-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
YVONNE CAITANO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Yvonne Caitano appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), and
subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and 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).
Initially, the government is correct that Caitano’s appeal from the order
denying her motion for compassionate release is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1). Caitano’s motion for reconsideration did not toll the deadline to file a
notice of appeal because it was not filed within the requisite 14-day period. See
United States v. Lefler, 880 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1989).
Caitano contends that the district court should have granted reconsideration
because the evidence she submitted in support of her original motion, together with
the allegedly new evidence she submitted in support of her motion for
reconsideration, showed that her medical conditions constituted extraordinary and
compelling reasons for release. However, even if Caitano’s allegedly new
evidence as to her medical conditions was sufficient to meet the “extraordinary and
compelling” standard of § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the district court was correct that her
motion for reconsideration did not address the court’s independent finding that the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. Moreover, any challenge to that
finding would have been unavailing because the court reasonably weighed the
§ 3553(a) factors, concluding that, notwithstanding Caitano’s health issues and
COVID-19 diagnosis, her immediate release would not adequately reflect the
seriousness of the offense, deter similar criminal conduct, or protect the public. On
this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Caitano’s
motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535,
2 21-10041
537 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review); see also 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.
3 21-10041