United States v. Atorbe Isibor ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50365
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00143-RGK-1
v.
ATORBE AARON ISIBOR, AKA Solomon MEMORANDUM*
Okuonghae,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Atorbe Aaron Isibor 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see
*
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). Accordingly, Isibor’s
request for oral argument is denied.
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Isibor argues that the district court abused its discretion by concluding that
his medical conditions did not provide a basis for relief, and by relying on the
nature of his offense rather than his rehabilitative efforts and other mitigating
circumstances. We disagree. The court acknowledged that Isibor’s medical
conditions were “not insignificant,” but reasonably concluded that they were not
serious enough to justify release, given the circumstances at his prison and the fact
that only one of his conditions subjected him to a potentially greater risk from
COVID-19. Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluding that, given the nature and scope of
Isibor’s offense, as well as his criminal history, release was not warranted. 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 without support
in the record); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.
2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the
discretion of the district court.”). Finally, contrary to Isibor’s contention, there is
no indication in the record that the district court impermissibly treated U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.13 as binding. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-50365