United States v. Moreno

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 27 2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-1533 D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:16-cr-00032-SLG-KFR-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

RONNIE MORENO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Court, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024** Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Ronnie Moreno appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Moreno’s counsel has filed a brief, along with a

*

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).

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Moreno the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988), discloses no meritorious grounds for relief as to whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for compassionate release, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), or in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors militated against early release under § 3582(c)(2), see Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (the second step of § 3582(c)(2)’s two-step inquiry requires the district court to determine, in its discretion, whether the applicable § 3553(a) factors support a sentence reduction).

Moreno’s pro se motion (Docket Entry No. 16) requesting immediate transfer to a halfway house in Alaska is denied. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b); United States v. Ceballos, 671 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2011) (the Bureau of Prisons has exclusive authority to determine a prisoner’s place of confinement).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1533