United States v. Anthony Sanchez ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10236
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00513-JMS-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY BUZIO SANCHEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Anthony Buzio Sanchez appeals pro se 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).
Sanchez contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding
that his medical conditions did not qualify as extraordinary and compelling reasons
for release. He argues that the district court erroneously treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13
as binding, see Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802, and overlooked parts of his medical record.
The record reflects, however, that the court did not treat § 1B1.13 as binding.
Moreover, it fully reviewed Sanchez’s medical record and acknowledged that he
appears to suffer from two conditions that increase his COVID-19 risk. The court
nevertheless reasonably determined that Sanchez did not have extraordinary and
compelling reasons for release given his age, overall risk factors, and vaccination
status. Contrary to Sanchez’s argument, the court did not rely on any clearly
erroneous facts and its conclusion was supported by the record. See United States
v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its
discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record).
Sanchez also argues that the district court abused its discretion in concluding
that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support release. He contends that the
court’s decision to grant compassionate release to a similarly situated defendant in
another case shows that the court’s decision in his case was arbitrary. However,
the court’s decision to grant relief in another case does not show that the court
abused its discretion here. To the contrary, the court reasonably concluded that the
2 21-10236
§ 3553(a) factors weighed against release in light of the serious nature of
Sanchez’s offense and his criminal history. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th
1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
3 21-10236