United States of America v. RENEA BARNES, AKA Renea Valdez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RENEA BARNES, AKA Renea Valdez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-647
D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00133-APG-VCF-9
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Renea Barnes appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her
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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (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).
FILED
MAR 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-647
Barnes argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that
she lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate
release. She contends that the Bureau of Prisons is not treating her medical
conditions adequately and that, if she were to experience a medical emergency in
prison, she would not get the necessary care.
To the extent Barnes relies on a 2023 Department of Justice Report to
support her claims, that report was not issued until after the district court decided
Barnes’s motion and thus, is not part of the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
10(a); Rudin v. Myles, 781 F.3d 1043, 1057 n.18 (9th Cir. 2015). Regardless,
Barnes has not shown that the court abused its discretion in determining that her
health conditions did not justify relief. 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). As the district court noted,
Barnes’s conditions were “not uncommon for a person her age,” there were no
reported cases of COVID-19 at Barnes’s prison at the time her motion was filed,
she had been vaccinated against the virus, and her medical records appeared to
show she was receiving adequate care.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --