Opinion
22-50011
10-20-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAYEL PEREZ-VALENCIA, AKA Santos Irizarry Castillo, AKA Miguel Martinez, AKA Miguel Angel Martinez-Marquez, AKA Miguelito, AKA Mayel Valencia Perez, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00442-PA-2 Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Mayel Perez-Valencia appeals pro se from the district court's order denying reconsideration of its order denying Perez-Valencia's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Perez-Valencia contends that the district court should have reduced his sentence under Amendment 782 in light of his rehabilitative efforts. Assuming without deciding that Perez-Valencia is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The court reasonably concluded that a sentence reduction was unwarranted in light of the serious nature of Perez-Valencia's drug-trafficking offense and the danger he poses to the public, as reflected in his criminal history and prison disciplinary violations. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 978 (9th Cir. 2021) (the district court is not "required to give more weight to [the defendant's] rehabilitative efforts in prison than to the nature of [his] offense conduct"). Moreover, contrary to Perez-Valencia's argument, the district court was not obliged to resentence him to the low-end of his proposed amended Guidelines range. See Wilson, 8 F.4th at 978. Finally, the record does not support Perez-Valencia's contention that the district court was biased against him.
AFFIRMED.
[*] 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).