Court Opinion

ID: 9374321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:45.939507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.514125
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-10193

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00098-SRB-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COTY TRAVIS WATERS,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Coty Travis Waters 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).
       Waters contends that the district court improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13

as binding, in contravention of this court’s opinion in United States v. Aruda, 993

F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021), when determining that he continued to pose a danger

to the community. We need not decide this issue because any error was harmless

in light of the district court’s conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did

not support release. See United States v. Wright, 46 F..4th 938, 944-48 (9th Cir.

2022) (erroneous application of § 1B1.13 is harmless if the district court’s analysis

of the § 3553(a) factors independently supports the denial of compassionate

release). Contrary to Waters’s argument, the district court did not abuse its

discretion in concluding that the § 3553(a) factors, particularly the seriousness of

the offense, did not favor compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284

(finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate

release under § 3553(a) after noting “the deference we must afford the district

court when it makes these discretionary decisions”). Waters’s contention that the

district court should have given greater weight to his mitigating arguments and the

unanticipated harshness of having to serve his sentence during a pandemic is

unavailing. See United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir.

2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the

discretion of the district court.”).

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    21-10193