United States v. 2020-11-17 | 20-10232 | USA V. MARCUS GIPSON | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MARCUS GIPSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10232

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00181-WBS-1

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Marcus Gipson 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
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gipson contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his

*
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).

FILED

NOV 17 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 20-10232
medical conditions put him at an increased risk of severe complications or death if
he contracts COVID-19. Gipson concedes that he recently recovered from
COVID-19 but argues that this does not necessarily ameliorate any future risk of
infection.
The district court did not abuse its discretion.
1
The district court
acknowledged Gipson’s medical conditions and the fact that multiple inmates in
the prison where Gipson is housed have tested positive for COVID-19. It
concluded, however, that these circumstances were not sufficiently “extraordinary
and compelling” to warrant immediate release because Gipson’s health conditions,
including his COVID-19 diagnosis, have been adequately managed by the Bureau
of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1)(A). This
conclusion is supported by the record. See 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).
AFFIRMED.

1
The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the parties’ assertion that
the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).