United States v. Bluford

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1529 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:18-cr-00008-JAM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* DEREK BLUFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 20, 2024** Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Derek Bluford appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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).  Bluford sought compassionate release on the basis of his serious medical conditions, the Bureau of Prisons’ alleged failure to provide adequate medical care, and his rehabilitative efforts. The district court concluded that (1) Bluford had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances arising from his receipt of medical care, and (2) the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors did not support relief given the amount of time remaining on Bluford’s sentence and the seriousness of his offenses. The district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching these conclusions, which are supported by the record. See 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 23-1529