United States v. Jonathan Escalante

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 21-30199
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30199

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00098-RRB-1

v. MEMORANDUM* JONATHAN ORTIZ ESCALANTE, AKA Superman,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Submitted August 17, 2022**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Jonathan Ortiz Escalante appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Escalante contends that he is entitled to release in light of the COVID-19

* 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). pandemic, his medical conditions, his release plan and rehabilitation, and because

he has served a portion of his sentence in lockdown conditions due to the

pandemic. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding otherwise.

See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of

review). The court considered Escalante’s medical conditions and circumstances,

but reasonably concluded that they did not constitute extraordinary and compelling

reasons for release because Escalante was in relatively good health, was receiving

adequate care, and had been fully vaccinated. The district court also reasonably

determined that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not justify release due to

Escalante’s criminal history and the “impact of his illegal conduct on the

community.” Escalante has not shown that the district court relied on any clearly

erroneous findings of fact, see United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir.

2010), nor is there any support in the record for his suggestion that the court

improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding, see Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-30199