United States of America v. Nelson Gaitan-Ayala

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NELSON GAITAN-AYALA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-465
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00268-DKW-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2023**
Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Gaitan-Ayala 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).
FILED
DEC 19 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-465
Gaitan-Ayala asserts that he is entitled to compassionate release in light of
Amendment 782 and because the court allegedly miscalculated the applicable drug
quantity and erroneously applied several enhancements at sentencing. The record
shows, however, that the district court considered these arguments and applied the
correct legal standard. 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). The district court reasonably concluded that Gaitan-Ayala
failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release because his
challenges to the calculation of his Guidelines range lack merit and because his
sentence is significantly below Guidelines even after application of Amendment
782. The court further determined, and Gaitan-Ayala does not challenge, that
relief is unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Gaitan-Ayala’s motion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; 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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --