United States of America v. Luke Warner

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUKE WARNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10004
D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00688-HG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Luke Warner appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and various
supplemental motions. 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
JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-10004
Warner first contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for
compassionate release. Warner has not shown, however, that the district court
abused its discretion. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir.
2021). The court properly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as advisory. See Aruda, 993
F.3d 802. Moreover, it fully considered Warner’s circumstances and arguments
and did not rely only any clearly erroneous facts. It did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that (1) Warner lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons for
release in light of his vaccination status and prior recovery from COVID-19, and
the Bureau of Prisons’ ability to provide adequate care for his medical conditions,
and (2) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release given the
seriousness of Warner’s offense, his criminal history, and his failure to self-
surrender after sentencing. 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).
Warner next challenges the district court’s orders denying numerous motions
related to his motion for compassionate release. We find no error in the sequence
or timing of the court’s orders. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Warner’s motions for recusal, see United States v.
Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1997), or Warner’s related motions
for reconsideration, see United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-10004
Cir. 2004). Warner’s remaining challenges to the court’s orders denying his
numerous supplemental motions are without merit.
Warner’s pending motions before this court are granted insofar as Warner
asks this court to consider all relevant authority and filings before the district court.
All other pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --