USA V. MARTIN CHAVEZ-ZARATE, No. 20-10281 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-10281 D.C. No. 1:98-cr-05149-NONE-1 v. MARTIN CHAVEZ-ZARATE, AKA Martin Zarate-Chavez, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Martin Chavez-Zarate appeals 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, and we affirm. Chavez-Zarate argues that the district court erred by affording excessive * 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). weight to his underlying offense and insufficient weight to his family support, rehabilitative achievements, lack of disciplinary infractions while in custody, and medical conditions. The district court did not abuse its discretion.1 The record reflects that the district court considered and gave weight to Chavez-Zarate’s mitigating arguments and medical conditions in finding that he had demonstrated “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for relief. However, the court concluded that a reduced sentence was not warranted in consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (district court must consider the applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors on a motion for compassionate release). In assessing those factors, the court placed appropriate weight on Chavez-Zarate’s leadership role in a serious drug trafficking conspiracy and his criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C). Because the court’s decision is supported by the record, it did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the record). AFFIRMED. 1 The denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). The parties agree that the abuse of discretion standard also applies to denials under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which we accept for purposes of this appeal. 2 20-10281
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
