United States v. Johnnie Warren

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10325
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:91-cr-00118-DAE-1
v.
JOHNNIE T. WARREN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David Alan Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Johnnie T. Warren appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his
motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and motion
for reconsideration. 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),
*
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).
we affirm.
Warren contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion because it failed to make an individualized determination as to whether his
health conditions constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for release and
it overestimated the protection the COVID-19 vaccine offers him. The record does
not support these claims. The court acknowledged Warren’s specific health issues
and concerns about the pandemic and “carefully considered Defendant’s arguments
as well as the evidence he included in support of his compassionate release
[motion]” before finding that Warren had not shown extraordinary and compelling
reasons for compassionate release. Given Warren’s vaccination status and the
totality of the circumstances, as well as “the deference we must afford the district
court when it makes these discretionary decisions, we cannot conclude that the
district court abused its discretion with this finding.” Keller, 2 F.4th 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 without support
in the record).
We need not consider Warren’s remaining arguments concerning the district
court’s finding that his release would pose a danger to the community because, as
the district court explained in denying Warren’s motion for reconsideration, it
could have denied Warren’s motion without any consideration of dangerousness.
2 21-10325
See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (district court may deny compassionate release motion
for lack of extraordinary and compelling reasons alone).
AFFIRMED.
3 21-10325