NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ENRIQUE INFANTE, Jr.,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 50121

D.C. No. 3:18

- cr

- 01265

- MMA

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 7, 2023 * * Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY, ** * District Judge.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

APR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 3

Enrique Infante , Jr. , challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirm.

Infante argued below that receiving inadequate treatment for stage

- II colon

cancer qualifie s as an “ extraordinary and compelling reason [] ” for a sente nce

reduction under § 3582(c ) (1)(A)(i)

. Even assuming arguendo that the district court

erred in holding that inadequate medical care for a treatable illness is a

categorically insufficient basis for early release, we hold that the district court
permissibly concluded that the 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a) factors weigh against reducing
Infante’s sentence in any event. See United States v. Wright , 46 F.4th 938, 947

– 48
(9th Cir. 2022).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the

§ 3553(a) factors do not support Infa nte’s release

. Contrary to Infante’s

contentions, the district court’s ruling was neither inadequately explained nor

predicated on an erroneous finding of material fact

.
The district court “provide [d] a sufficient explanation of the sentencing
decision to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Trujillo , 713
F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). The court’s ruling demonstrated that it
“considered [Infante’s] substantive arguments and offered a reasoned basis” for its

decision

. Wright , 46 F.4th at 9 50 (internal quotation marks omitted ). Specifically,

the court explained that Infante had served less than half of his sentence, that hePage 3 of 3

likely would not have received a lighter sentence under cur rent law because of his
long criminal history, and that Infante’s good behavior was admirable but did not

outweigh the competing considerations

. Because the district court showed

awareness of Infante’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors at issue
, a lengt h ier

explanation was not required. See i d.

The district court’s sentencing decision did not rest on a factual error. To be

sure, the district court was initially confused about which crimes Infante had been

convicted of. But Infante’s counsel correcte d that mistake , and the district court
ultimately stated that the factual issue was “neither here nor there” for purposes of

its ruling.

AFFIRMED

.