USA V. JACK COVERSUP, No. 21-30145 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-30145 D.C. No. 1:19-cr-00015-SPW-1 v. JACK PRESTON COVERSUP, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Jack Preston Coversup 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. 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). Coversup contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion because his medical conditions, in combination with alleged errors in his underlying criminal proceeding and with respect to an earlier conviction, justified compassionate release. We disagree. The district court reasonably concluded that, notwithstanding Coversup’s health conditions, relief was not warranted because of the absence of COVID-19 infections at his prison, the high number of vaccinated prisoners there, the short amount of time Coversup had served on his sentence, and the imminent availability of the vaccine to Coversup. Even assuming Coversup’s challenges to the instant conviction and a prior conviction were valid grounds for seeking compassionate release, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they did not support release. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only when its conclusions are illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). AFFIRMED. 2 21-30145
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.
