Opinion
21-30192
03-24-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HERNAN GOMEZ-GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00123-DCN-1 David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Hernan Gomez-Gutierrez appeals pro se from the district court's orders denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In the district court, the government argued that Gomez-Gutierrez's motion should be denied because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies as § 3582(c)(1)(A) requires. The district court assumed, without deciding, that Gomez-Gutierrez had exhausted and denied his motion on the merits. After the district court's decision, we held that the exhaustion requirement "is mandatory and must be enforced when properly raised by the government." United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir. 2021). In light of this authority, and Gomez-Gutierrez's concession on appeal that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies, we affirm the district court's denial of Gomez-Gutierrez's motion. We do not reach Gomez-Gutierrez's remaining arguments. See id. at 1283 n.2.
This disposition is without prejudice to Gomez-Gutierrez filing a new motion for compassionate release in the district court after he exhausts his administrative remedies.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.