United States v. Rafael Pahua-Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10169
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:15-cr-00140-TLN-EFB-1
v.
RAFAEL PAHUA-MARTINEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Rafael Pahua-Martinez 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. 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).
The district court denied Pahua-Martinez’s motion because the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors did not support the “drastic reduction” that Pahua-Martinez was
seeking in requesting a time-served sentence. Pahua-Martinez now contends that
the district court abused its discretion by limiting its consideration to whether he
was entitled to a reduction to a time-served sentence and failing to consider a
“lesser form of relief.” As Pahua-Martinez concedes, however, he only requested a
time-served sentence and did not seek a partial sentence reduction before the
district court. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider
relief that Pahua-Martinez did not request. Moreover, the district court reasonably
concluded that release was unwarranted in light of the nature and circumstances of
Pahua-Martinez’s offense and his criminal history. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
Because we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
§ 3553(a) analysis, we need not reach Pahua-Martinez’s argument that the court
erred when determining that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling
reasons for release. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947-48 (9th Cir.
2022) (any error by the district court in assessing whether defendant has
extraordinary and compelling reasons “is harmless if the court properly relied on
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors as an alternative basis for its holding”).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-10169