Court Opinion

ID: 9957648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:11.139171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:34.390804
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 4 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-336
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              1:14-cr-00045-AWI-BAM-1
 v.

FACUNDO LOPEZ-PEREZ, AKA Israel                 MEMORANDUM*
Lopez Zasueta, AKA Jose Huerta
Maldonado,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Facundo Lopez-Perez appeals from the district court’s order denying his

third 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.

          Lopez-Perez first contends that the district court’s conclusion that he failed

to exhaust his administrative remedies is not supported by the record, which shows

that he exhausted his first two compassionate release motions. As the district court

observed, however, Lopez-Perez did not provide any evidentiary support for his

assertion that he exhausted his administrative remedies as to this motion. See 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a); United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2021)

(a defendant must separately exhaust as to each compassionate release motion he

files).

          But, even assuming the district court erred in its exhaustion analysis, it did

not abuse its discretion in denying relief on the alternate ground that Lopez-Perez

had not shown extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting

compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1283 (district court’s error in passing

over the exhaustion issue was harmless because the court properly denied the

motion on other grounds). The district court acknowledged that Lopez-Perez had

health conditions that put him at higher risk from COVID-19, but reasonably

concluded that this risk was mitigated by a number of factors, including his

vaccination against COVID-19. Although the district court did not discuss each of

Lopez-Perez’s assertions, the record reflects that the court understood its broad

discretion and sufficiently considered Lopez-Perez’s arguments and circumstances.

                                            2                                     23-336
See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2022) (district court is not

required to “expound upon every issue raised by a defendant”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                                    23-336