Court Opinion

ID: 9390009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 18:01:02.026785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:31.078082
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 26 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-50200

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 8:07-cr-00202-DOC-5

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSE GONZALEZ, AKA Black, AKA
Negro,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Gonzalez appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

      The district court correctly acknowledged that it could consider the First

      *
             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).
Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to the applicable mandatory minimum in

assessing whether to grant compassionate release. See United States v. Chen, 48

F.4th 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2022). However, it determined that those changes did

not constitute extraordinary and compelling circumstances in this case because

Gonzalez’s Guidelines range at sentencing was “240 months to life,” and it would

resentence him “within the Guideline range of no fewer than 240 months.” The

government has acknowledged that the district court’s conclusion was based on

incorrect determinations of fact as to the Guidelines range that applied at

Gonzalez’s initial sentencing and the range that would apply if Gonzalez were

sentenced today. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021)

(district court abuses its discretion if it relies on clearly erroneous material facts to

deny compassionate release). The record shows that the Guidelines range at

sentencing was 240 months—not 240 months to life—solely because of the then-

applicable mandatory minimum. See U.S.S.G § 5G1.1(b). We, therefore, vacate

the district court’s order denying Gonzalez’s motion and remand for the district

court to reconsider whether the First Step Act’s reduction in the applicable

mandatory minimum, along with other intervening changes in sentencing law,

support Gonzalez’s request for compassionate release. See Chen, 48 F.4th at 1101.

                                            2                                     22-50200
      We do not address Gonzalez’s remaining arguments on appeal.1

      VACATED and REMANDED.

1
 Consistent with the government’s request, we deem its motion to remand, which
was premised on a different argument than the one advanced in the later-filed
answering brief, withdrawn.

                                       3                                 22-50200