United States of America v. Vaudencia Ceballos Hamilton

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
VAUDENCIA CEBALLOS HAMILTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30046
D.C. No. 1:18-cr-00086-DCN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Vaudencia Ceballos Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s order
denying her 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.
As an initial matter, in a decision issued after the district court denied
* 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
SEP 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30046
Hamilton’s motion, we held that “§ 3582(c)(1)(A)’s administrative exhaustion
requirement is mandatory and must be enforced when properly raised by the
government.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021). Because
the record shows that Hamilton had not properly exhausted her administrative
remedies prior to filing her compassionate release motion and the government
raised a timely exhaustion objection in the district court, the district court erred by
addressing Hamilton’s motion on the merits. See id. at 1282-83. However, this
error was harmless because the district court properly denied the motion under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at 1283. Contrary to Hamilton’s argument, the record
shows that the district court considered Hamilton’s arguments, but concluded that
the § 3553(a) factors as a whole weighed against release. See United States v.
Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Hamilton’s motion in light of Hamilton’s history
and characteristics and the seriousness of the offense. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --