United States v. Kareen Anderson ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10007
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:16-cr-00305-KJD-VCF-1
v.
KAREEN ANDERSON, AKA Webb, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Kareen Anderson 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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).
Anderson contends that the district court erred in concluding that his medical
conditions and family circumstances did not constitute extraordinary and
compelling reasons for relief. The district court observed that (1) many of
Anderson’s self-diagnoses were not supported by the provided medical record; (2)
although there were a few positive cases in Anderson’s prison, a high percentage
of the inmates in his prison were vaccinated against COVID-19; and (3) the court
had been aware of Anderson’s challenging family situation at the time of
sentencing. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Anderson’s medical status, even when viewed in conjunction with
his family circumstances, did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling
reason justifying 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 not supported by the record).
The record does not support Anderson’s claim that the district court
effectively required Anderson to disobey his religious beliefs in exchange for
compassionate release. Rather, the court merely explained that, although Anderson
was entitled to refuse the vaccine, it would not treat his unvaccinated status as
favoring compassionate release.
AFFIRMED.
2 22-10007