NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10226 

D.C. No. 

3:14-cr-00044-LRH-WGC-9 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Martin Cisneros 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. “[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence 

reduction decisions for abuse of discretion,” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 

* 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).

FILED

MAR 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-10226 

799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.

Cisneros contends that the district court clearly erred in concluding on 

remand that it did not treat U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in its initial order denying 

compassionate release. However, as this court previously explained, the district 

court’s initial order was merely “unclear” as to whether it impermissibly relied on 

§ 1B1.13. United States v. Cisneros, 851 F. App’x 785, 786 (9th Cir. 2021). 

Contrary to Cisneros’s contentions, there is no objective evidence undermining the 

district court’s conclusion that, in both its initial order and on remand, it did not 

treat § 1B1.13 as binding. 

Cisneros next argues that the district court erred in concluding that his 

diabetes did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. But 

given “the deference we must afford the district court when it makes these 

discretionary decisions, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its 

discretion with this finding.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 

2021). The district court balanced Cisneros’s diabetes against the treatment he was 

receiving and the conditions in his prison, permissibly concluding that there were 

no extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.

1

1 To the extent that Cisneros’s briefs contain new factual allegations about 

COVID-19 transmission within his facility, we do not consider such facts on 

appeal. Cisneros remains free to raise such facts with the district court in any 

subsequent motion for compassionate release.
3 21-10226 

Finally, Cisneros argues that the district court erred in concluding that the 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against release and that he remained a danger to 

the public. However, the court properly grounded its decision in the nature and 

circumstances of Cisneros’s offense and the need to reflect the seriousness of the 

offense and protect the public, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), and reasonably 

concluded that Cisneros, who was convicted of conspiring to traffic 17 pounds of 

methamphetamine and had served only about a quarter of his sentence for that 

offense, remained a danger to the public.

AFFIRMED.