United States of America v. RAMON RUBIO, AKA Chuy, AKA Jose DeJesus Munoz, AKA Primo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RAMON RUBIO, AKA Chuy, AKA Jose
DeJesus Munoz, AKA Primo,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10187
D.C. No. 4:11-cr-00291-SBA-14
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ramon Rubio 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
JAN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10187
Rubio contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding
that his medical conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic were not extraordinary
and compelling reasons warranting release. The record reflects that the district
court thoroughly considered Rubio’s health conditions, his medical care during the
COVID-19 pandemic, and the conditions at his facility. The court denied release
because of the low rate of infection at his facility, the high percentage of
vaccinated inmates at his facility, and the Bureau of Prisons’ ability to provide
adequate medical care for Rubio. Contrary to Rubio’s argument, the district
court’s conclusions were reasonable and adequately 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). Moreover, the court did not abuse its discretion by declining to
address the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or conduct any further analysis after
concluding that Rubio lacked extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting
release. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A]
district court that properly denies compassionate release need not evaluate each
step.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --