United States of America v. Glafiro Gonzalez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GLAFIRO GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-10354
D.C. No. 1:03-cr-05165-JLT-6
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Glafiro Gonzalez appeals 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).
FILED
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-10354
Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by failing to consider the
combined force of his arguments and by relying on clearly erroneous facts. The
record does not support these claims. The district court applied the correct legal
standard and gave due consideration to Gonzalez’s arguments. See United States
v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948-50 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining the district court’s
procedural obligations in compassionate release proceedings). Moreover, the
record supports the district court’s conclusion that Gonzalez’s sentence was
tethered to his Guidelines range and the aggravating factors of his offense, rather
than the mandatory minimum; the court’s observations regarding Gonzalez’s role
in the underlying offense and the reasoning of the sentencing court were not clearly
erroneous, see United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1103 (9th Cir. 2013).
On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that
Gonzalez had failed to show that changes to mandatory minimum sentencing laws,
or any of his other arguments, constituted an extraordinary and compelling reason
for compassionate release. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213
(9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,
implausible, or not supported by the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --