UNITED STATES v. CHAVEZ ZARATE (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Chavez-Zarate 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, and we affirm.

Chavez-Zarate argues that the district court erred by affording excessive weight to his underlying offense and insufficient weight to his family support, rehabilitative achievements, lack of disciplinary infractions while in custody, and medical conditions. The district court did not abuse its discretion.¹ The record reflects that the district court considered and gave weight to Chavez-Zarate's mitigating arguments and medical conditions in finding that he had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief. However, the court concluded that a reduced sentence was not warranted in consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors on a motion for compassionate release). In assessing those factors, the court placed appropriate weight on Chavez-Zarate's leadership role in a serious drug trafficking conspiracy and his criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C). Because the court's decision is supported by the record, it did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. 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 without support in the record).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The parties agree that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which we accept for purposes of this appeal.