United States v. Perales

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-2394
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2394 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:17-cr-00245-DCN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RAY PERALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Ray Perales appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion

for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

As a preliminary matter, the government contends Perales’s notice of appeal

* 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). was untimely. Rather than remand for the district court to determine whether

Perales is correct that he has good cause for the untimeliness, see Fed. R. App. P.

4(b)(4), we instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932,

941-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (timely notice of appeal is not jurisdictional in a criminal

case).

The district court concluded that there were no changes in sentencing law or

other circumstances that constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for

compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). It further concluded that a

sentence reduction would be inconsistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors. Perales has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in

reaching these conclusions. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir.

2022) (stating standard of review). The court considered all of Perales’s arguments

and thoroughly explained why they did not warrant relief. See id. at 948-50.

Moreover, the court’s findings were supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2394