United States v. Alvarado

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2025
• Docket: 24-6180
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6180 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:13-cr-00026-SPW-2 v. MEMORANDUM* THOMAS ALVARADO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Thomas Alvarado appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

fifth 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

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). As the district court stated, it denied Alvarado’s four previous

compassionate release motions because “while Alvarado has shown extraordinary

and compelling reasons for sentence reduction under USSG §1B1.13 due to his

serious health issues, such a reduction is not warranted under the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors.” In the instant motion, Alvarado claimed that his medical

conditions were worsening, and the Bureau of Prisons was not providing him

appropriate care. The district court ordered and reviewed Alvarado’s medical

records and concluded they did not support Alvarado’s claims. It therefore denied

compassionate release again.

Contrary to Alvarado’s contentions, the record supports the district court’s

conclusions regarding the care he is receiving in prison, and the court did not abuse

its discretion in denying 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 not supported by the record).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6180