United States of America v. JOSEPH TURNER, AKA Michael W. Daniels, AKA Joseph J. Turner, AKA Joseph NMI Turner,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH TURNER, AKA Michael W.
Daniels, AKA Joseph J. Turner, AKA Joseph
NMI Turner, AKA Michael J. Turner,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-50098
D.C. No. 2:00-cr-00904-TJH-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Joseph Turner appeals 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, 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
MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-50098
Turner contends that remand is warranted because the district court
impermissibly treated, or may have treated, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, in
contravention of our decision in United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.
2021). The record shows, however, that the district court was aware of Aruda.
Moreover, the court assumed it could consider changes in sentencing law, which is
not a factor identified in § 1B1.13, as a basis for compassionate release. On this
record, it is clear that the court did not treat § 1B1.13 as binding.
Turner also contends that the district court did not sufficiently explain its
decision to deny his motion, and wrongly concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors did not support compassionate release. But the record reflects that the court
understood Turner’s arguments and its explanation for the sentence, while terse,
was adequate given its familiarity with Turner’s case. See Chavez-Meza v. United
States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018); United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 977
(9th Cir. 2021). Finally, in light of the record and the deference afforded the
district court, we cannot conclude that it abused its discretion in concluding that
the § 3553(a) factors did not support compassionate release. See United States v.
Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021); 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 not supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --