United States of America v. Jack Preston Coversup

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JACK PRESTON COVERSUP,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30145
D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00015-SPW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jack Preston Coversup 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. 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 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30145
Coversup contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion because his medical conditions, in combination with alleged errors in his
underlying criminal proceeding and with respect to an earlier conviction, justified
compassionate release. We disagree. The district court reasonably concluded that,
notwithstanding Coversup’s health conditions, relief was not warranted because of
the absence of COVID-19 infections at his prison, the high number of vaccinated
prisoners there, the short amount of time Coversup had served on his sentence, and
the imminent availability of the vaccine to Coversup. Even assuming Coversup’s
challenges to the instant conviction and a prior conviction were valid grounds for
seeking compassionate release, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
that they did not support release. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206,
1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only when its conclusions
are illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --