United States of America v. Michael A. Riley

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL A. RILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30248
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00113-JLR-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Riley 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.
Riley contends that the district court erred by disregarding his heightened
* 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).
FILED
JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-30248
vulnerability to COVID-19 and by improperly weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. Given the record before the district court, “as well as the deference we
must afford the district court when it makes these discretionary decisions,” we
cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Keller, 2
F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021). The court considered all of Riley’s
arguments, including those regarding his serious health problems and rehabilitative
efforts, and determined that they did not constitute extraordinary and compelling
reasons for compassionate release in light of the Bureau of Prisons’ treatment of
his medical conditions, his age, his recovery from a prior COVID-19 infection, and
his vaccination status.1 The court further concluded that the § 3553(a) factors did
not support relief, noting in particular the nature and circumstances of Riley’s
offenses and his serious and escalating criminal history. These conclusions were
supported by the record, and were within the court’s broad discretion. 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); United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009)
(“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion
1 To the extent that Riley’s briefs contain new factual allegations regarding a
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report supporting his claim that
immunocompromised individuals are less protected by mRNA COVID-19
vaccines, we do not consider such facts on appeal. Riley remains free to raise such
facts with the district court in any subsequent motion for compassionate release.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-30248
of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --