Court Opinion

ID: 9366675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 18:01:08.36754+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.228945
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-30087

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00044-RRB-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ALAN M. BARTLETT,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Alan M. Bartlett 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). Appellant’s requests for oral
argument are, therefore, denied.
      Bartlett contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and that the

district court erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing. The

district court reasonably concluded that (1) Bartlett failed to establish extraordinary

and compelling reasons for release given his vaccination status and the medical

care available in prison, and (2) relief was not warranted in light of Bartlett’s

history and characteristics, his refusal to accept responsibility for his past criminal

conduct, and the need to protect the community. See id. at 1283-84; 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). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to

hold an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 513 (9th

Cir. 1996). Finally, Bartlett’s assertions that various aspects of his proceedings

were “fake” or fraudulent are unavailing.

      Appellant is informed that the docket is correct.

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                    22-30087