Court Opinion

ID: 9946953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 20:01:10.338305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.829236
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-647
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:19-cr-00133-APG-VCF-9
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
RENEA BARNES, AKA Renea Valdez,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Nevada
                   Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Renea Barnes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (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).
      Barnes argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that

she lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate

release. She contends that the Bureau of Prisons is not treating her medical

conditions adequately and that, if she were to experience a medical emergency in

prison, she would not get the necessary care.

      To the extent Barnes relies on a 2023 Department of Justice Report to

support her claims, that report was not issued until after the district court decided

Barnes’s motion and thus, is not part of the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.

10(a); Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2015). Regardless,

Barnes has not shown that the court abused its discretion in determining that her

health conditions did not justify 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). As the district court noted,

Barnes’s conditions were “not uncommon for a person her age,” there were no

reported cases of COVID-19 at Barnes’s prison at the time her motion was filed,

she had been vaccinated against the virus, and her medical records appeared to

show she was receiving adequate care.

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                     23-647