United States v. Alejandro Incera

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 27, 2022
Docket21-10335
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Alejandro Incera (United States v. Alejandro Incera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Alejandro Incera, (9th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10335

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00169-JCM-NJK-2 v.

ALEJANDRO ALEX INCERA, AKA MEMORANDUM* Alexander Jiminez-Incera,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 15, 2022**

Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Alex Incera appeals 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.

Incera contends that the district court should have granted his motion

* 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). because his history of Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”), in combination with his

other medical conditions and his mother’s recent cancer diagnosis, constitute an

extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The district court

did not abuse its discretion in finding otherwise. See United States v. Aruda, 993

F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). As the court explained, Incera’s history of GBS did

not justify his refusal to be vaccinated because the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention recommends vaccination for those who have had GBS. Moreover, the

record does not support Incera’s assertion that he has other medical issues, such as

asthma. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the

developments with Incera’s mother did not constitute an extraordinary and

compelling reason to grant relief.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-10335

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Patricia Aruda
993 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Alejandro Incera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-alejandro-incera-ca9-2022.