United States of America v. Emil Wolfgramm, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EMIL WOLFGRAMM, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10162
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00877-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Emil Wolfgramm, Jr., appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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). Accordingly, Wolfgramm’s
unopposed motion to expedite submission without oral argument is granted.
FILED
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10162
Wolfgramm contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard
because it did not meaningfully apply the standard adopted by this court in Aruda.
Wolfgramm also contends that, by treating his vaccination status and the low
incidence of COVID-19 cases in his prison as dispositive, the district court failed
to consider the totality of the circumstances.
The record does not support Wolfgramm’s claims. The district court
recognized that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 was not binding and applied the proper legal
standard in a manner consistent with Aruda. See id. at 802 (“The Sentencing
Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s
discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not
binding.”). Moreover, the district court acknowledged Wolfgramm’s health
conditions and considered the totality of his circumstances before reasonably
concluding that he lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. On
this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolfgramm’s
motion. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018)
(district court abuses its discretion if its application of the correct legal standard is
illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --