NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30230
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00034-TOR-1
v.
MICHAEL D. MILLER, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Michael D. Miller 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), and 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).
Miller contends that the district court abused its discretion because it
incorrectly concluded that he would be at equal risk from COVID-19 if he were
released, gave insufficient weight to the health risks created by his incarceration,
and improperly considered his rehabilitation separately from the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. The record does not support Miller’s claims. The district court
correctly observed that Miller’s medical conditions would exist even outside of
prison and that COVID-19 continues to spread within the community. Moreover,
it considered the risks posted by Miller’s particular health conditions. It did not
abuse its discretion in concluding that, because Miller’s health conditions were
stable and being monitored and treated, he had previously recovered from COVID-
19, and he had received two doses of the vaccine, he had not shown extraordinary
and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See 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). Moreover, the
court considered Miller’s rehabilitative efforts and reasonably concluded that,
though his efforts were commendable, they did not support compassionate release
given the nature and circumstances of his offense and significant criminal history.
See Keller, 2 F.4th 1284.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-30230