United States of America v. David Roland Hinkson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID ROLAND HINKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30159
D.C. No. 1:04-cr-00127-RCT-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 16, 2021***
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
David Roland Hinkson appeals pro se from the district court’s orders
denying his motions 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.
Hinkson contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, sitting by designation.
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-30159
compassionate release. He argues that his age and chronic medical conditions, his
desire to provide hospice care for his parents, and the illegality of his sentence
establish “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances warranting relief.
The district court did not abuse its discretion.1 The record reflects that the
district court considered Hinkson’s medical records and the arguments raised in
both of his motions for compassionate release, but concluded that a reduced
sentence was not appropriate in light of Hinkson’s serious underlying convictions,
his lack of remorse, his poor behavior while in custody, and his ongoing
dangerousness. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when reviewing a motion for
compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Moreover, the
district court did not clearly err in finding that Hinkson remained a danger to the
community. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A
finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record.”). We further find unpersuasive Hinkson’s other allegations of error by the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We assume for purposes of this appeal the government’s
undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

-- 2 of 2 --