USA V. RAYMELL EASON, No. 22-10080 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 22-10080 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00241-WBS-DB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RAYMELL LAMAR EASON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2022** Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Raymell Lamar Eason appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). 1 To the extent that Eason appeals from the district court’s unrelated January 11, 2022, minute order, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the minute order is § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm. Eason contends that he is entitled to compassionate release and the district court erred by failing to explain its decision to deny relief. The record reflects, however, that the district court considered Eason’s arguments for release and adequately explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Eason’s circumstances were not extraordinary and compelling in light of his vaccination status and the medical care he was receiving in prison. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating that the district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the record). Finally, contrary to Eason’s assertion, the court was not required to separately analyze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284. We do not consider matters not raised below and not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). not appealable as a final judgment nor an order that comes within the collateral order doctrine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Childs v. San Diego Fam. Hous., LLC, 22 F.4th 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2022) (discussing final decisions and requirements for an order to satisfy the collateral order doctrine). 2 22-10080 Eason’s motions for remand and for the “District Court to Forward Entire Record on Appeal” are denied. AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 22-10080
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
