Court Opinion

ID: 9901363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 18:01:37.709382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.541750
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10354

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:03-cr-05165-JLT-6

 v.

GLAFIRO GONZALEZ,                               MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Glafiro Gonzalez appeals 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).
       Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the

combined force of his arguments and by relying on clearly erroneous facts. The

record does not support these claims. The district court applied the correct legal

standard and gave due consideration to Gonzalez’s arguments. See United States

v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948-50 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining the district court’s

procedural obligations in compassionate release proceedings). Moreover, the

record supports the district court’s conclusion that Gonzalez’s sentence was

tethered to his Guidelines range and the aggravating factors of his offense, rather

than the mandatory minimum; the court’s observations regarding Gonzalez’s role

in the underlying offense and the reasoning of the sentencing court were not clearly

erroneous, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013).

On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that

Gonzalez had failed to show that changes to mandatory minimum sentencing laws,

or any of his other arguments, constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason

for compassionate release. 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 not supported by the record).

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                      22-10354