USA V. MARCUS GIPSON, No. 20-10232 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 17 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-10232 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00181-WBS-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARCUS GIPSON, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 9, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Marcus Gipson 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. Gipson contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because his * 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). medical conditions put him at an increased risk of severe complications or death if he contracts COVID-19. Gipson concedes that he recently recovered from COVID-19 but argues that this does not necessarily ameliorate any future risk of infection. The district court did not abuse its discretion.1 The district court acknowledged Gipson’s medical conditions and the fact that multiple inmates in the prison where Gipson is housed have tested positive for COVID-19. It concluded, however, that these circumstances were not sufficiently “extraordinary and compelling” to warrant immediate release because Gipson’s health conditions, including his COVID-19 diagnosis, have been adequately managed by the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(1)(A). This conclusion is supported by the record. 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 without support in the record). AFFIRMED. 1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the parties’ assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). 2 20-10232
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.
