United States of America v. Curtis K. Wong

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CURTIS K. WONG,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10257
D.C. No. 1:14-cr-00576-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Derrick Kahala Watson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Curtis K. Wong 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. Reviewing the district court’s decision for
abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021),
* 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 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10257
we affirm.
Contrary to Wong’s arguments on appeal, it is not “unclear” whether the
district court “placed improper weight” on U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. The court
acknowledged the holding in Aruda that § 1B1.13 is not an applicable policy
statement for compassionate release motions filed by defendants. See 993 F.3d at
802. Moreover, it fully considered all of the arguments Wong asserted in support
of his motion. Wong’s suggestion that the court’s decision may have been
“tainted” by its two prior decisions denying compassionate release is unsupported
by the record.
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not justify a reduction in Wong’s sentence.
Given Wong’s extensive criminal history, limited employment history, the type
and amount of drugs involved in his offense, and his role in the offense, it cannot
be said that the court’s decision was illogical, implausible, or without support in
the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --