United States v. Hendrickson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-862 D.C. No. 9:21-cr-00032-DWM-1 Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEMORANDUM* KATHY ANN HENDRICKSON, AKA Kathy Thorberg, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 20, 2024** Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Kathy Ann Hendrickson appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United * 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). States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm. Hendrickson argues that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, her medical issues, rehabilitation and low risk of recidivism, and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors warrant compassionate release.1 The district court fully considered these arguments, however, and reasonably determined that they did not support relief. As the court explained, Hendrickson’s medical issues were “far from extraordinary” and were being treated in prison; her rehabilitative efforts— while commendable—were not alone enough to justify compassionate release; and the § 3553(a) factors weighed against release in light of Hendrickson’s criminal history and the seriousness of her offense. Hendrickson’s disagreement with how the district court weighed these considerations is insufficient to show an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948 (9th Cir. 2022); see also 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. 1 Before the district court and in her opening brief, Hendrickson primarily argued that she was entitled to compassionate release to care for her ailing father. After appellee filed the answering brief, Hendrickson informed the court that her father had passed away, and asked this court to consider only her remaining arguments. Accordingly, we do not address Hendrickson’s arguments concerning her father. 2 24-862