NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10423
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00046-TLN-1
v.
SERGIO ROMAN BARRIENTOS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Roman Barrientos 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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (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).
The district court assumed that Barrientos’s medical conditions and the risks
posed by COVID-19 constituted “extraordinary and compelling” reasons for
release, but denied the motion after weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See
United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny
a compassionate release motion under § 3553(a) without first making a final
determination as to whether defendant has established extraordinary and
compelling reasons).1 Barrientos contends that the district court abused its
discretion in its § 3553(a) analysis. The record shows that the district court
considered Barrientos’s arguments for release, but reasonably concluded they were
outweighed by the seriousness of Barrientos’s “sophisticated, egregious” fraud
scheme, the fact he had served only 23 months of a 168-month sentence, and the
prison’s ability to care for his medical needs. Contrary to Barrientos’s contention
that the district court treated his low-end Guidelines sentence as a bar to relief, the
court concluded that several of his mitigating circumstances – age, medical
conditions, lack of criminal history – were already accounted for in that sentence.
In light of the deference owed to this discretionary decision, we cannot conclude
the district court abused its discretion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also United
1
Because the district court relied on the § 3553(a) factors to deny Barrientos’s
motion, we need not address his argument that the district court applied a more
restrictive definition of “extraordinary and compelling” reasons than the one
recognized in Aruda.
2 20-10423
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.”). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous findings. See
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-10423