United States v. Alan Bartlett

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-30087

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB-1

v. MEMORANDUM* ALAN M. BARTLETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Alan M. Bartlett 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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). Appellant’s requests for oral argument are, therefore, denied. Bartlett contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and that the

district court erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing. The

district court reasonably concluded that (1) Bartlett failed to establish extraordinary

and compelling reasons for release given his vaccination status and the medical

care available in prison, and (2) relief was not warranted in light of Bartlett’s

history and characteristics, his refusal to accept responsibility for his past criminal

conduct, and the need to protect the community. See id. at 1283-84; 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). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to

hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th

Cir. 1996). Finally, Bartlett’s assertions that various aspects of his proceedings

were “fake” or fraudulent are unavailing.

Appellant is informed that the docket is correct.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 22-30087