United States of America v. Jeffrey Clyde Jobe

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY CLYDE JOBE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30034
D.C. No. 3:18-cr-00081-SLG-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Clyde Jobe 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
* 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
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30034
Jobe contends that remand is required because the district court did not
explain what standard it used to determine whether he had established
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, thereby making it impossible to
determine if the court erroneously treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding. See
Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802 (district court may not treat § 1B1.13 as binding when
assessing a compassionate release motion brought by a prisoner). The record does
not support Jobe’s claim. The district court correctly described the statutory
framework for evaluating Jobe’s motion and referred to § 1B1.13 only when
responding to a specific claim Jobe had made under that Guideline. Moreover, the
court considered all of Jobe’s arguments in support of his motion, including his full
medical record, and did not restrict its analysis to the considerations set forth in
§ 1B1.13. Finally, the district court independently concluded that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors did not support compassionate release, a conclusion
Jobe does not challenge on appeal. On this record, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jobe’s motion.
The government’s motion to supplement the record or, in the alternative, for
judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --