Court Opinion

ID: 9405351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 00:00:53.313804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:21.500062
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-30181

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:15-cr-00150-SPW-1

 v.

CHANCE BILLY JOE DEHART,                        MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Chance Billy Joe Dehart 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 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).
      Dehart contends that the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.13, and that he is entitled to compassionate release because his medical

conditions put him at increased risk of severe complications from COVID-19, and

the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) is unable to protect him. He also argues that the

district court failed to explain its decision adequately.

      The record reflects that the district court treated § 1B1.13 appropriately.

Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, insofar as Dehart’s medical records

supported his claimed health concerns, his risk of serious illness from COVID-19

was mitigated by his vaccination. The record also supports the court’s

determination that Dehart had made an inadequate showing as to the BOP’s

alleged mismanagement of COVID-19 and his particular vulnerability to the virus.

On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. See

United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). Further, the

court’s explanation was adequate. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct.

1959, 1965 (2018).

      We do not reach Dehart’s arguments regarding the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors because the court permissibly declined to consider them after concluding

that Dehart had failed to demonstrate extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-30181