United States v. Zachary Jones ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 25 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    21-30166
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00091-WFN-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ZACHARY WAYNE JONES, AKA Zachary
    W. Jones, AKA Kelodragon,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 16, 2022**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
    Zachary Wayne Jones 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).
    Jones contends that the district court overlooked several of his arguments for
    release, relied on clearly erroneous facts, inadequately explained its decision to
    deny the motion, and may have wrongly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding.
    The record reflects, however, that the district court understood Jones’s arguments
    and adequately explained why it believed Jones had not shown extraordinary and
    compelling reasons for compassionate release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States,
    
    138 S. Ct. 1959
    , 1965-67 (2018). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly
    erroneous facts, and did not cite § 1B1.13 or otherwise indicate that it believed the
    Guideline constrained its analysis. In light of the reasons provided by the district
    court, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    21-30166
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-30166

Filed Date: 3/25/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/25/2022