United States of America v. Omar Butt

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OMAR BUTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10044
D.C. No.
2:12-cr-00083-APG-GWF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Omar Butt 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, and we affirm.
Butt challenges the district court’s conclusion that he did not demonstrate
* 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
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10044
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting his release. The district court did
not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir.
2021). The record does not support Butt’s claim that the court treated § 1B1.13 as
a binding policy statement. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802 (“The Sentencing
Commission’s statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 may inform a district court’s
discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, but they are not
binding.”). Though the court cited § 1B1.13, it did not limit its review to the
statements provided in that provision. Rather, the court concluded that release was
unwarranted because Butt’s risk of reinfection with COVID-19 was low, his
release could pose risks to himself and others, and his facility was adequately
caring for him and containing the spread of COVID-19. These conclusions were
not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. See United States v.
Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). Moreover, the court considered
Butt’s arguments and adequately explained its reasons for denying relief. See
Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).
We do not consider Butt’s allegation of sentencing error because, even
assuming it is cognizable in a compassionate release proceeding, it is raised for the
first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --