United States v. Coty Waters ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10193
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00098-SRB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COTY TRAVIS WATERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Coty Travis Waters 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. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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).
Waters contends that the district court improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
as binding, in contravention of this court’s opinion in United States v. Aruda, 993
F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021), when determining that he continued to pose a danger
to the community. We need not decide this issue because any error was harmless
in light of the district court’s conclusion that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did
not support release. See United States v. Wright, 46 F..4th 938, 944-48 (9th Cir.
2022) (erroneous application of § 1B1.13 is harmless if the district court’s analysis
of the § 3553(a) factors independently supports the denial of compassionate
release). Contrary to Waters’s argument, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that the § 3553(a) factors, particularly the seriousness of
the offense, did not favor compassionate release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284
(finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of compassionate
release under § 3553(a) after noting “the deference we must afford the district
court when it makes these discretionary decisions”). Waters’s contention that the
district court should have given greater weight to his mitigating arguments and the
unanticipated harshness of having to serve his sentence during a pandemic is
unavailing. See United 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.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-10193