United States v. Sanchez-Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-6876
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6876 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:17-cr-02201-CAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* HUGO SANCHEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

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

Hugo Sanchez-Gonzalez 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. 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). Sanchez-Gonzalez contends the district court failed to consider recent

developments in sentencing law and policy, relied on unsupported assumptions,

and did not conduct an individualized sentencing analysis. To the extent these

arguments go to the district court’s determination that extraordinary and

compelling circumstances were lacking, we do not reach them because Sanchez-

Gonzalez 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). Contrary

to Sanchez-Gonzalez’s argument, the district court adequately explained that the

seriousness of his offense and the “devastating” nature of the drugs involved

weighed against a sentence reduction. See id. at 948-49. Moreover, on the record

presented, the district court’s conclusion is not illogical, implausible, or without

support in the record. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th

Cir. 2018).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6876