FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 18 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30073
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00299-BR-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FEDERICO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 10, 2021**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and WU,*** District Judge.
*
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 Honorable George H. Wu, United States District Judge for the
Central District of California, sitting by designation.
Federico Martinez appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the district court’s ruling.
1. Martinez argues the district court erred by relying exclusively on the
policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 to deny his motion for compassionate
release. The Guidelines’ policy statements “may inform a district court’s
discretion for § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by a defendant, [so long as] they [are
not treated] as binding.” See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir.
2021). The district court explained in its reconsideration order that it
considered § 1B1.13 as “advisory rather than mandatory” in denying Martinez’s
motion. Thus, the district court did not apply the wrong legal standard.
2. Martinez argues the district court abused its discretion by concluding that
he did not present extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting compassionate
release. First, Martinez asserts the district court ignored the government’s
concession that obesity qualifies as an extraordinary and compelling reason. But
the court was not obligated to accept that concession, nor did any concession by
the government equate to a stipulation that Martinez’s motion be granted. Second,
Martinez asserts the district court erred by concluding younger inmates are not at a
sufficiently high risk for contracting COVID-19 even if they are obese. The court
2
acknowledged Martinez’s obesity increased his risk but also recognized that
younger individuals are generally at a lower risk. Both statements are supported by
CDC guidelines. See CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, People
with Certain Medical Conditions,
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/people-with-
medical-conditions.html. Finally, Martinez asserts the district court disregarded
that the deaths in his family due to COVID-19 established he is predisposed to
“severe COVID-19 illness.” The evidence Martinez submitted did not
conclusively establish a genetic predisposition nor require the court to grant his
motion. All told, the district court’s conclusion that Martinez did not present
extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting compassionate release was
not illogical or implausible, and it was supported by the record. See United States
v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining a district court
abuses its discretion only if its decision applies the wrong legal standard or is
illogical, implausible, or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.
3