United States of America v. Charisse Macloves

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHARISSE MACLOVES,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-700
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00169-JMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 10, 2023**
Before: S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Charisse Macloves appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and her
subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, 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
OCT 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-700
Initially, we agree with the government that Macloves’ notice of appeal from
the denial of her motion for compassionate release was untimely. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(b)(1); United States v. Lefler, 880 F.2d 233, 235 (9th Cir. 1989). But, there is
no prejudice to her because we have reviewed both district court orders and
conclude that there was no abuse of discretion by the district court. See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review for
compassionate release motions); United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535,
537 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating standard of review for reconsideration motions).
Contrary to Macloves’ argument, the record reflects that the district court
considered her arguments for release and the totality of her circumstances. Its
conclusion that relief was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,
including Macloves’ criminal history and the need for deterrence, was reasonable
and supported by the record. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284. Moreover, Macloves
failed to identify any law or fact warranting reconsideration. See School Dist. No.
1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Finally,
contrary to Macloves’ contention, the court did not abuse its discretion by failing
to hold an evidentiary hearing on her motion. See United States v. Townsend, 98
F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --