USA V. NICHOLAS BOWEN, No. 21-10329 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-10329 D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00318-TLN-1 MEMORANDUM* NICHOLAS ROBERT BOWEN, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 11, 2022** Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Nicholas Robert Bowen appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Bowen contends that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard * 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). Accordingly, Bowen’s request for oral argument is denied. when evaluating his motion, and that the evidence concerning his medical conditions, the Bureau of Prisons’ failure to protect him from COVID-19, and his substantial rehabilitative efforts compelled the court to grant compassionate release. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The record shows that the court applied the correct legal standard, properly treating U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as persuasive but not binding.1 See id. at 802. Moreover, the court thoroughly considered Bowen’s arguments, and acknowledged Bowen’s medical conditions and efforts to rehabilitate. It nevertheless reasonably concluded that relief was unwarranted because Bowen’s release would pose a danger to the public and a reduction in his sentence would not be consistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny compassionate release based on the § 3553(a) factors without first deciding whether the defendant has shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for release). This conclusion was logical, plausible, and supported by the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). Bowen’s request to expedite this appeal is denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 1 Bowen’s reliance on United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (1906), is misplaced. That case provides no support for Bowen’s argument that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating his motion. 2 21-10329
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.
