USA V. JEFFREY WOOLLEY, No. 22-30057 (9th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 24 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-30057 D.C. No. 9:13-cr-00030-DWM-6 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY WOOLLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Jeffrey Woolley 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. Woolley contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding * 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). that the conditions at his facility, his health conditions, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not warrant compassionate release. The district court acknowledged that Woolley’s age and medical conditions placed him at an increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19, as well as Woolley’s arguments regarding the conditions of his confinement. However, it reasonably concluded that that these circumstances were not extraordinary and compelling in light of Woolley’s vaccination status and recovery from a prior COVID-19 infection. Moreover, the district court gave an adequate justification for its decision, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018), and did not rely on any clearly erroneous findings of fact, see United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763, 779 (9th Cir. 2015). On this record, the court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). AFFIRMED. 2 22-30057

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.