United States v. Jesus Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 27 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50090
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 8:18-cr-00033-JLS-1
v.
JESUS ANGEL LOPEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Angel Lopez 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, and we affirm.
Lopez argues that the district court erred by improperly treating U.S.S.G.
*
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).
§ 1B1.13 as binding, violating the party presentation principle, and failing to
consider all of his arguments in favor of release. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th
Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). The record demonstrates that the court
repeatedly acknowledged that it was not bound by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and properly
treated that Guideline as advisory. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802
(9th Cir. 2021). Further, contrary to Lopez’s contention, the district court did not
violate the party presentation principle by deciding his motion without input from
the government. Rather, the court appropriately acted as a “neutral arbiter of
matters” presented in Lopez’s motion. See United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S.
Ct. 1575, 1579 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining the party
presentation principle). Finally, the record reflects that the court considered each
of Lopez’s arguments and sufficiently explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-68 (2018).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-50090