United States of America v. JUAN AGUILAR CORTEZ, AKA Pablo Mendoza Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN AGUILAR CORTEZ, AKA Pablo
Mendoza Martinez,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-1102
D.C. No.
2:95-cr-00020-WBS-KJN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Juan Aguilar Cortez appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying
his fourth motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i),
and his supplemental motion in support of that request. We have jurisdiction under
* 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
APR 4 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-1102
28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Wright,
46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022), we affirm.
Cortez contends that the district court (1) improperly considered retroactivity
when assessing whether changes in sentencing law supported relief, (2) failed to
give appropriate weight to his rehabilitative efforts and other mitigating
circumstances, (3) failed to explain why his mitigating circumstances were
insufficient to support release, and (4) showed improper bias in repeatedly
rejecting his claims for relief. These claims are unavailing. The district court
acknowledged Cortez’s arguments regarding changes in sentencing law, including
the reclassification of one of Cortez’s prior state offenses. Although it noted that
the changes in federal law were not retroactive, it expressly stated that it “does
have the authority to grant a sentence reduction based on a change in the law.” It
nevertheless declined to do so because of the circumstances of Cortez’s offenses
and his extensive criminal history. Cortez’s assertion that the court should have
given greater weight to his mitigating arguments is insufficient to establish that the
court abused its discretion. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 948. Moreover, the record
does not support Cortez’s assertion that the district court failed to explain why it
found his mitigating arguments insufficient, see id. at 948-50, or his allegations of
bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“[J]udicial rulings
alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --