NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10271

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00036-DKW-1 v.

MEMORANDUM* CORALEEN TUISALOO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii

Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Coraleen Tuisaloo appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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).

Tuisaloo contends that the district court abused its discretion by determining that her purported eligibility for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), which went unrecognized at sentencing, did not warrant relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Assuming without deciding that Tuisaloo’s alleged safety valve eligibility is a proper basis for seeking compassionate release, the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a lower sentence even if Tuisaloo had been eligible for safety valve relief. Contrary to Tuisaloo’s argument, the district court provided an adequate explanation for its decision, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018), and its § 3553(a) analysis was consistent with the requirements of the compassionate release statute, see 18 U.S.C § 3582(c)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-10271