United States of America v. Mark Kalani Beebe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARK KALANI BEEBE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10098
D.C. Nos.
1:14-cr-00690-DKW-4
15-cr-635
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2022**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Mark Kalani Beebe timely appeals the district court’s denial of
his motion for release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Reviewing for
abuse of discretion, United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (per
curiam), 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
MAR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
After the district court issued its original order, we held in United States v.
Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), that United States Sentencing
Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") § 1B1.13 is not binding when, as here, a defendant files a
motion for release. Here, although the district court described U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
as binding, its analysis did not cite the Guideline, and the court does not appear to
have treated the Guideline as binding. The court fully considered Defendant’s
arguments for release and reasonably rejected them because of the low rate of
COVID-19 infection at the prison and because of the "rare" risk of reinfection.
Any doubt about the role that the Guideline played is resolved by the district
court’s post-Aruda order denying bail, in which the court affirmed what is clear
from its original order: the Guideline "played no meaningful role" in the court’s
analysis. Any error was harmless.
Nor did the district court err by resting solely on its conclusion that
Defendant had not shown an "extraordinary and compelling reason" for release,
without considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Keller, 2 F.4th at
1283–84 (holding that the two steps are independent and that "a district court that
properly denies compassionate release need not evaluate each step").
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --