Court Opinion

ID: 9946550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 21:00:46.204831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:37.793669
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-1138
                                                D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00567-RGK-2
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

CESAR MUNOZ GONZALEZ, AKA
Blanco, AKA "B",

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                   R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 21, 2024**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Cesar Munoz Gonzalez 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see

      *
             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).
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

       Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by failing to recognize its

authority to reduce his sentence even if it did not grant him immediate release.

The record demonstrates that the district court adequately responded to the

arguments Gonzalez presented and does not suggest the court misunderstood the

scope of its discretion under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). See Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S.

639, 653 (1990) (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in

making their decisions.”), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S.

584, 609 (2002). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by

concluding that Gonzalez had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling

reasons for relief. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,

implausible, or without support in the record).

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                       23-1138