United States of America v. Joshua Lee Helm

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSHUA LEE HELM,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30003
D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00057-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 17, 2021 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Joshua Lee Helm appeals pro se 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. We review for an 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).
FILED
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30003
Helm contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his
medical conditions subject him to a greater risk of severe illness from COVID-19,
he is receiving inadequate medical care, and he does not pose a danger to the
community. The district court agreed with Helm that his medical issues
constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons supporting his release but denied
relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Given the record before the court, it did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Helm’s history and characteristics, as well as
the substantial time remaining on his sentence, did not support release. 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 without support in the
record); see also United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (court
may deny compassionate release based on its § 3553(a) analysis alone).
We do not reach Helm’s remaining arguments, many of which concern
issues beyond the scope of a compassionate release motion, because they were not
raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th
Cir. 2009). To the extent Helm argues that the district court relied on clearly
erroneous facts regarding his offense conduct and criminal history, the record does
not support his argument.
Helm’s motions for “reconsideration for compassionate release” are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --