United States v. James York

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 25, 2022
• Docket: 21-10196
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10196

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00069-LHR-SKO-1 v.

JAMES YORK, AKA YD, AKA Jamari MEMORANDUM* York, AKA York Dog,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lee H. Rosenthal, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted May 17, 2022***

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

James York 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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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.

York contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his

motion because his asthma puts him at severe risk from COVID-19, and his

rehabilitative efforts in prison and release plan show that releasing him to home

confinement would satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We reject

this contention. The district court reasonably concluded that York’s asthma did not

justify compassionate release, given York’s age, vaccination status, and the care he

was receiving in prison. Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, in light of

York’s criminal history and history of violating conditions of supervision, as well

as the danger he posed to the community, the § 3553(a) factors did not support

relief. Accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion by denying York’s motion. See

Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; 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).

AFFIRMED.

2 21-10196