Court Opinion

ID: 9957650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 19:01:11.882253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:33.505961
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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. 23-1102
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              2:95-cr-00020-WBS-KJN-1
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JUAN AGUILAR CORTEZ, AKA Pablo
Mendoza Martinez,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                   William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

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

      Juan Aguilar Cortez appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying

his fourth motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i),

and his supplemental motion in support of that request. We have jurisdiction under

      *
             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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Wright,

46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022), we affirm.

      Cortez contends that the district court (1) improperly considered retroactivity

when assessing whether changes in sentencing law supported relief, (2) failed to

give appropriate weight to his rehabilitative efforts and other mitigating

circumstances, (3) failed to explain why his mitigating circumstances were

insufficient to support release, and (4) showed improper bias in repeatedly

rejecting his claims for relief. These claims are unavailing. The district court

acknowledged Cortez’s arguments regarding changes in sentencing law, including

the reclassification of one of Cortez’s prior state offenses. Although it noted that

the changes in federal law were not retroactive, it expressly stated that it “does

have the authority to grant a sentence reduction based on a change in the law.” It

nevertheless declined to do so because of the circumstances of Cortez’s offenses

and his extensive criminal history. Cortez’s assertion that the court should have

given greater weight to his mitigating arguments is insufficient to establish that the

court abused its discretion. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 948. Moreover, the record

does not support Cortez’s assertion that the district court failed to explain why it

found his mitigating arguments insufficient, see id. at 948-50, or his allegations of

bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings

alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                    23-1102