United States of America v. Jason C. Youker

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JASON C. YOUKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30089
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00152-RMP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jason C. Youker 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
FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-30089
The district court concluded that Youker had not shown extraordinary and
compelling reasons for compassionate release because he did not have any medical
conditions that put him at increased risk from COVID-19, and he had declined
vaccination. On appeal, Youker does not challenge this conclusion, nor is there a
basis to do so given the evidence in the record. See United States v. Robertson,
895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its
decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record).
To the extent Youker argues that the court should have treated his
sentencing arguments as extraordinary and compelling reasons, the record reflects
that the district court considered and reasonably rejected each of those arguments.
It acknowledged that the First Step Act had lowered the applicable mandatory
minimum, but correctly observed that the Guidelines range, and not the much
lower mandatory minimum, had dictated his sentence. It further explained that the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release when Youker had not yet
served even half of his sentence. In light of Youker’s criminal history and offense
conduct, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion,
which is alone enough to affirm. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948
(9th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --