United States of America v. Charles Head

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES HEAD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10154
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00093-KJM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Charles Head appeals from the district court’s order 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v.
Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
FILED
JUN 6 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10154
Head contends that the district court erroneously determined that he lacked
extraordinary and compelling reasons for relief. As Head concedes, however, the
district court assumed without deciding that he made such a showing, and denied
the motion based solely on its conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did
not support relief. The district court’s analysis was not improper. See Keller, 2
F.4th at 1284 (a district court may properly deny compassionate release on the
basis of the § 3553(a) factors alone).
Head further contends that the § 3553(a) factors weigh in favor of release
because his criminal history score has been lowered, his prison disciplinary history
has been insignificant and his rehabilitative efforts extensive, and his sentence is
much longer than those of his codefendants. We disagree. The district court did
not abuse its discretion in concluding that, even though Head had made
rehabilitative efforts and did not present a danger to the community, the nature and
circumstances of his offenses, his unique leadership role in the two conspiracies,
and the time remaining on his below-Guidelines sentence did not support
compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also United States v.
Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (the district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the
record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --