United States v. Gaitan-Ayala

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2023
• Docket: 23-465
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-465 D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00268-DKW-1 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. MEMORANDUM* NELSON GAITAN-AYALA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 12, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Nelson Gaitan-Ayala 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

* 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). Gaitan-Ayala asserts that he is entitled to compassionate release in light of

Amendment 782 and because the court allegedly miscalculated the applicable drug

quantity and erroneously applied several enhancements at sentencing. The record

shows, however, that the district court considered these arguments and applied the

correct legal standard. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 948-50 (9th Cir.

2022) (explaining the district court’s procedural obligations in compassionate

release proceedings). The district court reasonably concluded that Gaitan-Ayala

failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release because his

challenges to the calculation of his Guidelines range lack merit and because his

sentence is significantly below Guidelines even after application of Amendment

782. The court further determined, and Gaitan-Ayala does not challenge, that

relief is unwarranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Gaitan-Ayala’s motion. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; 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 not supported by the record).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-465