United States of America v. Julio Cesar Barron

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JULIO CESAR BARRON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10227
D.C. No.
1:15-cr-00319-NONE-SKO-5
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Julio Cesar Barron 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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
MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10227
Barron contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion because it did not address his argument concerning the heightened risk of
contracting COVID-19 in prison, gave insufficient weight to his alleged symptoms
of long COVID-19, erred in its assessment of how much time Barron had served
on his sentence, placed too much weight on his vaccination status, and erred in
concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support his release.
Barron’s arguments are not supported by the record, which reflects that the district
court carefully considered all of Barron’s arguments, understood the nature of
Barron’s health conditions and the amount of time remaining on his sentence, and
gave reasonable weight to Barron’s vaccination status, the conditions at Barron’s
prison, and other relevant factors. On this record, the court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that Barron had not demonstrated extraordinary and
compelling reasons for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i);
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). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding that
relief was not warranted under the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Keller, 2
F.4th at 1284.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --