United States v. Enrique Infante , Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 21, 2023
• Docket: 22-50121
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-50121

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:18-cr-01265-MMA-1 v.

ENRIQUE INFANTE, Jr., MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

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. 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 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.