NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30253
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-00052-SLG-1
v.
RICKY A. BLODGETT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ricky A. Blodgett 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.
Blodgett argues that the district court incorrectly determined that his
*
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).
hepatitis C was not an “extraordinary and compelling reason[]” to grant
compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). He further argues that
the Bureau of Prisons is not meeting his medical needs, and that the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors support his release. The district court considered
these arguments, but concluded that the lack of support in the record for Blodgett’s
assertions concerning his medical condition, the seriousness of his offense, his
significant criminal history, and his disciplinary infractions while incarcerated
counseled against release. Given the record before the district court, it did not
abuse its discretion by denying Blodgett’s motion. See United States v. Aruda, 993
F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); United States v.
Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-30253