Court Opinion

ID: 9375050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 19:00:46.212309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.499212
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30089

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00152-RMP-1

 v.

JASON C. YOUKER,                                MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Jason C. Youker 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).
      The district court concluded that Youker had not shown extraordinary and

compelling reasons for compassionate release because he did not have any medical

conditions that put him at increased risk from COVID-19, and he had declined

vaccination. On appeal, Youker does not challenge this conclusion, nor is there a

basis to do so given the evidence in the record. See United States v. Robertson,

895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its

decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record).

      To the extent Youker argues that the court should have treated his

sentencing arguments as extraordinary and compelling reasons, the record reflects

that the district court considered and reasonably rejected each of those arguments.

It acknowledged that the First Step Act had lowered the applicable mandatory

minimum, but correctly observed that the Guidelines range, and not the much

lower mandatory minimum, had dictated his sentence. It further explained that the

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release when Youker had not yet

served even half of his sentence. In light of Youker’s criminal history and offense

conduct, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion,

which is alone enough to affirm. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948

(9th Cir. 2022).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-30089