UNITED STATES v. DRUMMONDO FARIAS (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Jacob Drummondo-Farias appeals pro se from the district court's denial of two motions for compassionate release brought under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for compassionate release under Section 3582(c)(1). United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam). A district court abuses its discretion when “its application of the correct legal standard [is] (1) ‘illogical,’ (2) ‘implausible,’ or (3) without ‘support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.’ ” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 577, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying either of Drummondo-Farias's motions for compassionate release. At 37 years old, Drummondo-Farias did not present a demonstrated risk factor for severe illness with COVID-19 even assuming he was obese, and nearly 15 years remained on his 27-year sentence. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion when it determined that the Section 3553(a) weighed against release in light of Drummondo-Farias's criminal history. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the “deference we must afford the district court when it makes these discretionary decisions”). There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.