United States of America v. Raymell Lamar Eason

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAYMELL LAMAR EASON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10080
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00241-WBS-DB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Raymell Lamar Eason appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying compassionate
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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).
1 To the extent that Eason appeals from the district court’s unrelated January 11,
2022, minute order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the minute order is
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-10080
§ 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th
1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Eason contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and the district
court erred by failing to explain its decision to deny relief. The record reflects,
however, that the district court considered Eason’s arguments for release and
adequately explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
1959, 1965 (2018). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
determining that Eason’s circumstances were not extraordinary and compelling in
light of his vaccination status and the medical care he was receiving in prison. See
United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that the
district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or
not supported by the record). Finally, contrary to Eason’s assertion, the court was
not required to separately analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Keller, 2
F.4th at 1284.
We do not consider matters not raised below and not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d
983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
not appealable as a final judgment nor an order that comes within the collateral
order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Childs v. San Diego Fam. Hous.,
LLC, 22 F.4th 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing final decisions and
requirements for an order to satisfy the collateral order doctrine).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-10080
Eason’s motions for remand and for the “District Court to Forward Entire
Record on Appeal” are denied.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --