NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30180
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:17-cr-00229-TOR-1
v.
BENJAMIN RODRIGUEZ, AKA Demon, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Benjamin Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence
reduction decisions for abuse of discretion,” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797,
*
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). Rodriguez’s request for oral
argument is denied.
799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Rodriguez argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding
that his obesity, in combination with his other medical conditions, did not
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. He
further argues that the district court should not have treated his vaccination status
as mitigating his risk from COVID-19 without first conducting an individualized
analysis as to the protection the vaccine provides him. But the district court’s
findings that Rodriguez’s conditions were being “treated or monitored,” and that
“[n]o acute conditions were noted,” are grounded in the record. See United States
v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its
discretion if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
And, given “the deference we must afford the district court when it makes these
discretionary decisions,” we cannot conclude that the district court abused its
discretion in its treatment of Rodriguez’s vaccination status. United States v.
Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).1
Likewise, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by
concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. It grounded
1
To the extent that Rodriguez’s briefs contain new factual allegations about his
medical conditions, COVID-19 transmission within his facility, and the availability
of booster doses, we do not consider such facts on appeal. Rodriguez remains free
to raise such facts with the district court in any subsequent motion for
compassionate release.
2 21-30180
its analysis in the nature and circumstances of Rodriguez’s offense, his criminal
history, and the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense and protect the public,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), reasonably concluding that, even after
consideration of “recent developments,” the “totality of all the facts” supported the
original sentence.
AFFIRMED.
3 21-30180