NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

RAPHAEL SAKARIA,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 23

- 10017

D.C. No.

1:19

- cr

- 00064

- LEK

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 3, 2023 * *
Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BERZON, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Raphael Sakaria appeals the district court’s decision denying his motion for

sentence reduction and compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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). 

# FILED

OCT 11 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

“ We review 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse

of discretion. ” United States v. Chen , 48 F.4th 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2022)

. A

district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard or if its

“ application of the correct legal standard [i s ] (1) illogical, (2) implausible, or (3)

without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.”

United States v. Sivilla , 714 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States

v. Hinkson

, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th Cir. 2009)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sakaria’s motion for

sentence reduction and compassionate release. U nder section 3582(c)(1)(A), a

district court may “reduce [a] term of imprisonment . . . if it finds that

. . .

extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction,” and that “ s uch a

reduction is con sistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission.” See also United States v. Keller , 2 F.4th 1278, 1283

– 84 (9th Cir.

2021) (per curiam). I n determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons

warrant a sentence reduction, “district courts may consider non

- retroactive changes

in sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual

defendant .” Chen , 48 F.4th at 1098. Here, the district court did just that

. The court

assumed that, had Sakaria been sentenced today, he would have received a

sentence 10 to 12 months shorter than the sentence he is currently serving

. The

court concluded , however, that this did not amount to an extraordinary and3

compelling reason u nder section 3582(c)(1)(A) (i)

, “especially given the nature and

circumstance s of [Sakaria’s] offense that involved a significant drug trafficking

conspiracy.” Th at analysis was neither illogical nor implausible.

Sakaria argues that, once the district court assumed that he would have

received a shorter sentence had he been sentenced today, the court had no choice

but to grant his motion. In effect, Sakaria asks us to transform a non

- retroactive

change in sentencing law

— which the district court may consider in its discretion

—

into a fully retroactive change that the district court must apply. But we have

explained that “ allowing defendants to petition for compassionate release, based in

part on the sentencing disparities created by [a non

- retroactive change in

sentencing law] , does not automatically make every defendan t who received a

. . .

sentence [under the superseded law] eligible for a sentence reduction .” Chen , 48

F.4th at 1100

. Rather, where a defendant moves for compassionate release, “ the

determination of what constitutes extraordinary and compelling reasons for

sentence reduction lies squarely within the district court ’ s discretion. ” Id. at 1095.

AFFIRMED.