United States of America v. Charles H. Foster

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES H. FOSTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10102
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00219-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Charles H. Foster 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, and we affirm.
Foster contends that the district court failed to conduct a “holistic inquiry”
* 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
OCT 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10102
when evaluating his compassionate release motion and that it gave insufficient
weight to his arguments for release. However, we have explained that
compassionate release motions involve “a sequential step-by-step analysis” and a
court denying relief may rely on either an insufficient showing of extraordinary
and compelling reasons or the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v.
Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). Here, the district court acknowledged
Foster’s arguments, but nevertheless determined that they did not support a
sentence reduction of over 200 months in light of the § 3553(a) factors, including
the seriousness of the offense, and the need for deterrence and protection of the
public. This conclusion was not an abuse of discretion. See 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).
Accordingly, we do not reach Foster’s argument that the district court erred in its
analysis of whether Foster had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for
relief. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
The motion for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --