United States v. James York ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10196
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:16-cr-00069-LHR-SKO-1
v.
JAMES YORK, AKA YD, AKA Jamari MEMORANDUM*
York, AKA York Dog,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lee H. Rosenthal, District Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 17, 2022***
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
James York 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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.
York contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion because his asthma puts him at severe risk from COVID-19, and his
rehabilitative efforts in prison and release plan show that releasing him to home
confinement would satisfy the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We reject
this contention. The district court reasonably concluded that York’s asthma did not
justify compassionate release, given York’s age, vaccination status, and the care he
was receiving in prison. Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, in light of
York’s criminal history and history of violating conditions of supervision, as well
as the danger he posed to the community, the § 3553(a) factors did not support
relief. Accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion by denying York’s motion. See
Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; 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).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10196