United States of America v. Mutee Fareed Alghaffaar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MUTEE FAREED ALGHAFFAAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10279
D.C. No.
3:14-cr-00548-WHO-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: M. MURPHY,*** GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Mutee Al-Ghaffaar appeals the district court’s denial of his motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) for compassionate release. Because the parties are
* 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).
*** The Honorable Michael R. Murphy, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
familiar with the facts, we do not review them here. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review a motion for compassionate release under § 3582(c)(1) for abuse
of discretion. United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). “A district
court abuses its discretion if it fails to apply the correct legal standard or if its appli-
cation of the correct standard is ‘illogical, implausible, or without support in infer-
ences that may be drawn from facts in the record.’” United States v. Estrada, 904
F.3d 854, 862 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247,
1251 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that Al-Ghaffaar did not demonstrate “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” sufficient to justify compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --