USA V. ISMAEL SERRANO, No. 21-50012 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 21-50012 21-50013 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 5:13-cr-00005-VAP-1 5:18-cr-00148-VAP-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ISMAEL SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated appeals, Ismael Serrano appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motions 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), * 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). we affirm. Serrano contends that the district court incorrectly believed that, because U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 constrained its review of whether he had shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, it could not grant relief to a prisoner like Serrano who had no underlying health conditions. The record does not support Serrano’s claim. The district court expressly declined to decide if § 1B1.13 was binding, and instead properly relied on it only as guidance. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 802. Furthermore, the court demonstrated that it understood its discretion to grant relief when it considered Serrano’s arguments regarding his health conditions and his experience when he contracted COVID-19, and acknowledged the spread of COVID-19 in the prisons and at Serrano’s prison in particular. The court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Serrano had failed to establish extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, nor did it abuse its discretion when it observed that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors also would not support relief, given the dangerousness of Serrano’s offense conduct, his criminal history, and his poor performance on supervision. The government’s motion to supplement the record or, in the alternative, for judicial notice, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-50012 & 21-50013
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.
