Opinion
21-10146
01-26-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT ARON SPRENKLE, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted January 19, 2022 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00146-AWI-BAM-1, Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Robert Aron Sprenkle appeals pro se from the district court's denial of compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The order to show cause issued on November 30, 2021, is discharged.
As an initial matter, the government is correct that, because Sprenkle waited nearly three months to file his motion for reconsideration, his appeal is timely only as to the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Belgarde, 300 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002) (motion for reconsideration tolls the time to appeal the underlying order only if it is filed within the time for appeal). However, even if Sprenkle's appeal were timely as to both orders, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying relief. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (denial of compassionate release is reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (denial of motion for reconsideration is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Contrary to Sprenkle's argument, nothing in the court's orders indicates that it gave any consideration to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13. Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, because the protocols in Sprenkle's prison had reduced the number of COVID-19 infections to zero, Sprenkle had failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Finally, the record belies Sprenkle's assertion that he offered new evidence justifying reconsideration.
Sprenkle's motion to supplement the record is denied.
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). Sprenkle's request for oral argument is denied.