United States v. Solis-Sanchez ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-521
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00079-KJM-AC-1
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. MEMORANDUM*
FELIPE SOLIS-SANCHEZ, AKA Felipe
Solis,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Felipe Solis-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
*
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).
United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Solis-Sanchez contends that the district court failed to consider his
arguments for compassionate release, namely, that his sentence is “excessive and
unjust” because the district court incorrectly calculated the drug quantity involved
in his offense, and because his Guidelines range would be lower if he were
sentenced today. The record shows, however, that the district court fully
considered his arguments for release, and reasonably determined that Solis-
Sanchez failed to offer any support or explanation for his conclusory assertion that
the drug quantity attributed to him at sentencing was incorrect. On this record, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Solis-Sanchez failed to
demonstrate extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. 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 not supported by the record).
Moreover, the court acted within its discretion in denying compassionate release
on this basis alone. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284 (“a district court that properly
denies compassionate release need not evaluate each step”).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-521