Opinion
22-30010
10-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM MICHAEL ROSARIO, AKA William Rosario, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska D.C. No. 3: 16-cr-00047-TMB-MMS-1 Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
William Michael Rosario 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Rosario contends that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether the totality of the arguments he presented, including the difficult conditions of confinement during the pandemic, his rehabilitation and employment while in custody, and the "inequity of his exclusion from safety valve eligibility," constituted extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting relief. However, the record reflects that the district court considered Rosario's arguments and explained adequately its decision to deny the motion. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Moreover, contrary to Rosario's contention, the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts. In light of the reasons cited by the district court, which are supported by the record, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rosario had not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting relief. 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).
Rosario's motion to supplement the record is granted.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).