NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10431
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00514-TLN-3
v.
NICHOLAS VOTAW, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nicholas Votaw 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, and we affirm.
Votaw contends that the district court should have granted his motion in
*
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).
light of his young age at the time of his offense, remarkable success on pretrial
release, minimal and nonviolent criminal history, and stable release plan. The
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Votaw’s motion. See United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court assumed
without deciding that Votaw demonstrated compelling and extraordinary reasons
under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), but nevertheless concluded that the factors listed in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not support a sentence reduction. The district court’s
conclusions that the § 3553(a) factors did not support a substantial reduction in the
24-month sentence and that Votaw’s medical needs were being adequately
managed were not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.
See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-10431
United States v. Nicholas Votaw
Combined Opinion