Court Opinion

ID: 9366715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 19:00:44.245122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.707229
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-50090

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:18-cr-00033-JLS-1

 v.

JESUS ANGEL LOPEZ,                              MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 18, 2023**

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

      Jesus Angel Lopez 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, and we affirm.

      Lopez argues that the district court erred by improperly treating U.S.S.G.

      *
             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).
§ 1B1.13 as binding, violating the party presentation principle, and failing to

consider all of his arguments in favor of release. The district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th

Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). The record demonstrates that the court

repeatedly acknowledged that it was not bound by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and properly

treated that Guideline as advisory. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802

(9th Cir. 2021). Further, contrary to Lopez’s contention, the district court did not

violate the party presentation principle by deciding his motion without input from

the government. Rather, the court appropriately acted as a “neutral arbiter of

matters” presented in Lopez’s motion. See United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S.

Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining the party

presentation principle). Finally, the record reflects that the court considered each

of Lopez’s arguments and sufficiently explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v.

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-68 (2018).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       22-50090