Court Opinion

ID: 9366033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 19:01:07.207384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.947938
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10169

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                2:15-cr-00140-TLN-EFB-1
 v.

RAFAEL PAHUA-MARTINEZ,                          MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

      Rafael Pahua-Martinez 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

United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
      The district court denied Pahua-Martinez’s motion because the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors did not support the “drastic reduction” that Pahua-Martinez was

seeking in requesting a time-served sentence. Pahua-Martinez now contends that

the district court abused its discretion by limiting its consideration to whether he

was entitled to a reduction to a time-served sentence and failing to consider a

“lesser form of relief.” As Pahua-Martinez concedes, however, he only requested a

time-served sentence and did not seek a partial sentence reduction before the

district court. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider

relief that Pahua-Martinez did not request. Moreover, the district court reasonably

concluded that release was unwarranted in light of the nature and circumstances of

Pahua-Martinez’s offense and his criminal history. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.

      Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its

§ 3553(a) analysis, we need not reach Pahua-Martinez’s argument that the court

erred when determining that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling

reasons for release. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947-48 (9th Cir.

2022) (any error by the district court in assessing whether defendant has

extraordinary and compelling reasons “is harmless if the court properly relied on

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as an alternative basis for its holding”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-10169