United States of America v. OSWALDO ORNELAS, AKA Snoop, AKA Snoopy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
OSWALDO ORNELAS, AKA Snoop, AKA
Snoopy,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-50164
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-00616-BAS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Oswaldo Ornelas 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.
Ornelas contends that the district court erred by denying his motion and by
* 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
JAN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-50164
failing to give reasons for the denial. The district court did not abuse its discretion
in concluding that compassionate release was not warranted.1 The district court
acknowledged that Ornelas’s medical conditions placed him at a higher risk of
serious illness from COVID-19. It concluded, however, that this risk was
outweighed by the danger to the community that Ornelas would pose if released, as
evidenced by his long history of drug trafficking, his violent criminal history, and
the fact that neither his prior drug conviction nor his medical conditions deterred
him from reoffending. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (courts must consider the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors when determining whether to grant
compassionate release); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B)-(C). The court
fully explained its reasons for reaching this conclusion, which is supported by the
record. See 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
without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.
1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155
(9th Cir. 2013). We accept for purposes of this appeal the government’s
undisputed assertion that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials
under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

-- 2 of 2 --