NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50038
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:95-cr-00345-RSWL-16
v.
RAYMOND SHRYOCK, AKA Huero Shy, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Raymond Shryock 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, and we affirm.
Shryock contends that the district court should have granted his motion
*
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).
given his age, poor health, family circumstances, rehabilitative efforts, the
conditions at his facility, and the length of time he has served. He argues that the
court failed to consider, or gave insufficient weight to, these mitigating
circumstances. The record reflects, however, that the court considered Shryock’s
arguments and simply did not find them persuasive. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that Shryock had failed to show extraordinary
and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release, and that the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i);
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of
review). Although Shryock has served a significant amount of time on his life
sentence and has made rehabilitative efforts while in custody, the court did not
abuse its discretion by denying release given the serious and violent nature of
Shryock’s offenses and the need to promote respect for the law, provide just
punishment, and afford adequate deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)(A)-
(C). Moreover, the district court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts. See
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“A finding is clearly
erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-50038