 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 29 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-50164 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00616-BAS-1 v. OSWALDO ORNELAS, AKA Snoop, AKA MEMORANDUM* Snoopy, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 20, 2021** Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Oswaldo Ornelas 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 , and we affirm. Ornelas contends that the district court erred by denying his motion and by * 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). failing to give reasons for the denial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that compassionate release was not warranted.1 The district court acknowledged that Ornelas’s medical conditions placed him at a higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19. It concluded, however, that this risk was outweighed by the danger to the community that Ornelas would pose if released, as evidenced by his long history of drug trafficking, his violent criminal history, and the fact that neither his prior drug conviction nor his medical conditions deterred him from reoffending. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A) (courts must consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) sentencing factors when determining whether to grant compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). The court fully explained its reasons for reaching this conclusion, which 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 government’s undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(1)(A)(i). 2 20-50164 
United States v. Oswaldo Ornelas
Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit