FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUL 27 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-30197
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00275-JLR-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANDREW MARK SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 6, 2021
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Andrew Salazar asks that we vacate and remand for
further consideration the district court’s denial of his motion for a reduction in
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), otherwise known as
“compassionate release.” Salazar argues that the district court abused its discretion
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
by denying the motion by utilizing what appears to be a form with boxes and
blanks to be filled in. We review the denial of § 3582(c)(1)(A) sentence reduction
for abuse of discretion, United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021),
and affirm.
The district court did not err when it refused to address Salazar’s argument
that there were “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for a § 3582(c)(1)(A)
sentencing reduction because “a district court that properly denies compassionate
release need not evaluate” both whether there were “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” and the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Keller, Nos. 20-50247,
21-50035, 2021 WL 2695129, at *5 (9th Cir. July 1, 2021).
Although additional explanation by the district court of its reasoning
regarding the § 3553(a) factors might have been helpful to our review, under the
circumstances we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion when
it denied Salazar’s motion. See, e.g., Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct.
1959, 1965 (2018) (explaining that the level of explanation required depends
“upon the circumstances of the particular case”). It is possible to discern the district
court’s reasoning by reference to the factors identified in the denial order as having
been considered by the district court, perhaps most importantly the nature of the
2
crimes underlying the conviction and the potential risk to the community if Salazar
were released. Id. at 1967.
We cannot conclude that the district court’s resolution of the motion was
“illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from
the facts in the record,” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir.
2009) (en banc), so we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3