NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10024
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00059-MCE-1
v.
ABRAHAM VALDEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Abraham Valdez 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).
Valdez contends that the district court applied the wrong legal standard
when it treated as binding U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and its requirement that defendant
show lack of dangerousness. See id. at 799, 802. We need not decide this issue
because the district court made clear that, regardless of the guideline’s
requirements, it would deny appellant’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See
United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court may deny
a compassionate release motion based on the § 3553(a) factors alone). Valdez
argues that the district court’s § 3553(a) analysis was deficient because the court
ignored his evidence of post-sentencing rehabilitation, as well as his argument that
his conditions of confinement are more onerous now than they were at the time of
sentencing. However, the record shows that the district court considered Valdez’s
arguments and simply was not persuaded that they provided “sufficient
justification for disturbing the Court’s carefully crafted original sentence.” The
district court’s explanation was adequate. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138
S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10024