Opinion
21-30166
03-25-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ZACHARY WAYNE JONES, AKA Zachary W. Jones, AKA Kelodragon, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00091-WFN-1
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Zachary Wayne Jones appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Jones contends that the district court overlooked several of his arguments for release, relied on clearly erroneous facts, inadequately explained its decision to deny the motion, and may have wrongly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding. The record reflects, however, that the district court understood Jones's arguments and adequately explained why it believed Jones had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, and did not cite § 1B1.13 or otherwise indicate that it believed the Guideline constrained its analysis. In light of the reasons provided by the district court, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones's motion.
AFFIRMED.