NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-669

D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:20-cr-00151-JLT-SKO-1 v.

MEMORANDUM* JOSE FERNANDO GOMEZ-MOREIRA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California

Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024** Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Jose Fernando Gomez-Moreira 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, and we affirm.

Gomez-Moreira contends that he presented extraordinary and compelling

*

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). reasons for compassionate release, including his chronic medical conditions and the deterioration of his health while in custody due to inadequate care by the Bureau of Prisons. He also contends that the district court failed to give individualized consideration to his circumstances and the evidence he presented in support of his claims.

The record reflects that the district court fully considered Gomez-Moreira’s individual circumstances and medical conditions, his arguments in favor of release, and all the submitted medical records. Though the court was sympathetic to Gomez-Moreira’s medical challenges, it nonetheless concluded that they were being adequately treated in custody and did not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review); see also United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (the district court abuses its discretion only where its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-669