United States of America v. LEVI SAELUA, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEVI SAELUA, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10162
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00021-SOM-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Levi Saelua, Jr. appeals pro se 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 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
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10162
Saelua contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying
compassionate release. We disagree. The record shows that the court applied the
proper legal standard. See id. at 802. It acknowledged Saelua’s medical
conditions, but reasonably concluded that any increased risk Saelua might face
from COVID-19 was mitigated by his vaccination, recovery from a prior COVID-
19 infection, and the absence of any active infections at his facility. The record
also supports the court’s conclusion that changes to the sentencing laws did not
constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances. As the court explained,
even accepting Saelua’s sentencing arguments, he “would still have many years to
go on his sentence.”
Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not support release. As the court
observed, Saelua had served only about 40% of his 25-year sentence and he had a
broad and violent criminal history, as well as a troubling prison disciplinary record,
that indicated he would likely pose a danger to the community upon release. On
this record, the court was well within its discretion to deny relief. See United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --