NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30104
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00076-BLW-1
v.
RYAN ANDREW CHAMBERS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Andrew Chambers 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. 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).
Chambers contends that the district court erred by finding that his
hypertension had resolved and that there was a low rate of COVID-19 infection at
his facility. He further argues that the court erred in relying on, as a factor
weighing against relief, the Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) vaccine distribution. The
court’s findings are supported by the record, and it reasonably relied on them to
conclude that Chambers’ medical conditions and risk posed by COVID-19 did not
establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting 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).
Chambers next argues that the district court erred in its calculation of how
many months he had served at the time he filed his motion and also in its
description of his convictions. The factual errors of which Chambers complains
are, at most, minor discrepancies that do not undermine the district court’s
reasonable concerns regarding the minimal amount of time Chambers had served
on his 240-month sentence, his history and characteristics, and the seriousness of
his offense. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
relief, notwithstanding Chambers’ contention that COVID-19 has made prison
more punitive. See Robertson, 895 F.3d at 1213.
Finally, Chambers’ unsupported claim of actual innocence does not
2 21-30104
undermine the district court’s conclusion that relief was not warranted.
The government’s unopposed motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-30104