NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30186
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00026-SPW-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TOMAS ALVARADO, AKA Thomas
Alvarado,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Alvarado appeals pro se 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.
Alvarado contends that he is entitled to compassionate release because
*
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).
(1) his age and various medical conditions increase his risk of severe illness or
death should he contract COVID-19; (2) he has taken advantage of rehabilitative
programs and not had any disciplinary infractions while in prison; and (3) he has a
“solid release plan.” The district court did not abuse its discretion.1 The record
reflects that the district court considered Alvarado’s medical conditions, age, and
mitigating arguments. However, the court reasonably determined that relief was
unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and
circumstances of the offense, and the need to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) factors on a
motion for compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C).
Moreover, contrary to Alvarado’s argument, the district court did not rely on any
clearly erroneous facts. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir.
2010) (“A finding is clearly erroneous if it is illogical, implausible, or without
support in the record.”).
We do not reach Alvarado’s remaining arguments, which are beyond the
scope of a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion.
AFFIRMED.
1
The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151,
1155 (9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the government’s
undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
2 20-30186