United States of America v. Coraleen Tuisaloo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CORALEEN TUISALOO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10271
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00036-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Coraleen Tuisaloo appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion
for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10271
Tuisaloo contends that the district court abused its discretion by determining
that her purported eligibility for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f),
which went unrecognized at sentencing, did not warrant relief under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Assuming without deciding that Tuisaloo’s alleged safety
valve eligibility is a proper basis for seeking compassionate release, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the § 3553(a) factors did not
support a lower sentence even if Tuisaloo had been eligible for safety valve relief.
Contrary to Tuisaloo’s argument, the district court provided an adequate
explanation for its decision, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959,
1965-67 (2018), and its § 3553(a) analysis was consistent with the requirements of
the compassionate release statute, see 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --