United States v. Tomas Alvarado ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-30238
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00026-SPW-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TOMAS ALVARADO, AKA Thomas
Alvarado,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Alvarado appeals from the district court’s order denying his second
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. 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).
Alvarado contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion because it failed to explain adequately why his age, medical conditions,
good custodial record, and the COVID-19 pandemic did not constitute
extraordinary and compelling reasons, and failed to account for the evolving view
of the seriousness of drug offenses, as reflected in Amendment 782 to the
Guidelines. These arguments are unavailing. The court’s discussion of why
Alvarado’s arguments did not establish extraordinary and compelling reasons is
more than sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018). Moreover, the court did not err by
failing to address Amendment 782, which Alvarado never raised before that court.
As to the arguments Alvarado did raise regarding changes in sentencing law, the
court considered them and explained why they were unpersuasive. The court did
not abuse its discretion in concluding that Alvarado had failed to demonstrate an
extraordinary and compelling reason to reduce his sentence and that the § 3553(a)
factors did not support release. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1283-84.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-30238