United States v. Marquez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 23, 2026
• Docket: 25-3128
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-3128 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:12-cr-00906-DGC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ROCKY DELGADO MARQUEZ, AKA Rocky Marquez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Rocky Delgado Marquez appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion,

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

Marquez contends he established extraordinary and compelling reasons for

release and asserts the district court erred by failing to consider his circumstances

in the aggregate. We need not address the district court’s determination that

Marquez lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances because he has not

shown any abuse of discretion in the district court’s independent conclusion that

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. See United States v. Wright,

46 F.4th 938, 948 (9th Cir. 2022) (any error in assessing extraordinary and

compelling circumstances is harmless if the district court properly relies on the

§ 3553 factors as an alternate basis to deny relief). The district court reasonably

concluded that a reduction in Marquez’s sentence would not reflect the serious

nature of his offense, promote respect for the law, or provide adequate deterrence,

and would result in sentencing disparities. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; United

States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or not supported by the

record).

Marquez’s motion to appoint counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3128