Court Opinion

ID: 9901364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 18:01:37.957228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.702218
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED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.   22-50067

                   Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No.
                                                  3:08-cr-01332-JAH-2
  v.

FIDEL VILLARREAL,                                 MEMORANDUM*

                   Defendant-Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of California
                       John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted November 17, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

       Fidel Villarreal appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s denial of compassionate

release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir.

       *
             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).

Sealed Documents
2022). We affirm.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villarreal’s motion

for compassionate release. When reviewing motions for compassionate release, a

district court must: (1) “determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons

warrant a sentence reduction,” (2) “evaluate whether a reduction would be

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission,” and (3) “consider and weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) to decide whether the requested sentence reduction is warranted under

the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. at 945 (quotation marks and citations

omitted). “Although a district court must conclude that a defendant satisfies all

three predicates before granting a motion for compassionate release, it may deny

compassionate release if a defendant fails to satisfy any of these grounds.” Id.

       Villarreal’s argument that the district court improperly took judicial notice

of facts in other compassionate release cases in its “extraordinary and compelling

reasons” determination lacks merit. The district court did not take judicial notice of

any facts, but merely, as courts do, cited other cases holding that diagnoses of

hypertension and high cholesterol are not “extraordinary or compelling reasons”

warranting compassionate release.

       Since Villarreal raises no other arguments for why the district court abused

its discretion in determining that Villarreal failed to demonstrate “extraordinary

Sealed Documents                          2                                    22-50067
and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release, we need not address

Villarreal’s remaining arguments.

AFFIRMED.

Sealed Documents                       3                                 22-50067