Summary
affirming denial of compassionate release for a defendant with preexisting conditions who had already contracted COVID
Summary of this case from United States v. ThompsonOpinion
No. 20-10232
11-17-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCUS GIPSON, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00181-WBS-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Marcus Gipson 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, and we affirm.
Gipson contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical conditions put him at an increased risk of severe complications or death if he contracts COVID-19. Gipson concedes that he recently recovered from COVID-19 but argues that this does not necessarily ameliorate any future risk of infection.
The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court acknowledged Gipson's medical conditions and the fact that multiple inmates in the prison where Gipson is housed have tested positive for COVID-19. It concluded, however, that these circumstances were not sufficiently "extraordinary and compelling" to warrant immediate release because Gipson's health conditions, including his COVID-19 diagnosis, have been adequately managed by the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1)(A). This conclusion is supported by the record. See 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 without support in the record).
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 accept for purposes of this appeal the parties' assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). --------
AFFIRMED.