United States of America v. ENRIQUE INFANTE, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE INFANTE, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50121
D.C. No.
3:18-cr-01265-MMA-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WATFORD and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY,*** District
Judge.
* 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 Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
Enrique Infante, Jr., challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for
reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We affirm.
Infante argued below that receiving inadequate treatment for stage-II colon
cancer qualifies as an “extraordinary and compelling reason[]” for a sentence
reduction under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Even assuming arguendo that the district court
erred in holding that inadequate medical care for a treatable illness is a
categorically insufficient basis for early release, we hold that the district court
permissibly concluded that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weigh against reducing
Infante’s sentence in any event. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947–48
(9th Cir. 2022).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
§ 3553(a) factors do not support Infante’s release. Contrary to Infante’s
contentions, the district court’s ruling was neither inadequately explained nor
predicated on an erroneous finding of material fact.
The district court “provide[d] a sufficient explanation of the sentencing
decision to permit meaningful appellate review.” United States v. Trujillo, 713
F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013). The court’s ruling demonstrated that it
“considered [Infante’s] substantive arguments and offered a reasoned basis” for its
decision. Wright, 46 F.4th at 950 (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically,
the court explained that Infante had served less than half of his sentence, that he

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
likely would not have received a lighter sentence under current law because of his
long criminal history, and that Infante’s good behavior was admirable but did not
outweigh the competing considerations. Because the district court showed
awareness of Infante’s arguments and the § 3553(a) factors at issue, a lengthier
explanation was not required. See id.
The district court’s sentencing decision did not rest on a factual error. To be
sure, the district court was initially confused about which crimes Infante had been
convicted of. But Infante’s counsel corrected that mistake, and the district court
ultimately stated that the factual issue was “neither here nor there” for purposes of
its ruling.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --