United States v. Casares-Cuevas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 6 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3673 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:12-cr-00038-LRH-VPC-1 v. MEMORANDUM* ANTONIO CASARES-CUEVAS, AKA Roberto Mendoza, AKA Fernando, AKA Tony, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 29, 2024** Before: FRIEDLAND, BENNETT, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Antonio Casares-Cuevas 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, and 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).  Casares-Cuevas argues that, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the instant motion. We need not decide this issue because, even if Casares-Cuevas had exhausted, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281-82 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and holding that exhaustion is not jurisdictional). First, as the district court explained, the law concerning methamphetamine offenses has not changed since Casares-Cuevas’s sentencing, and he failed to show that his sentence is unfairly disparate to sentences received by similarly situated defendants. Second, the district court reasonably found—and Casares-Cuevas does not challenge— that release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the seriousness of Casares-Cuevas’s offense and the safety of the community. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2022) (district court may deny compassionate release under the § 3553(a) factors alone). We do not consider Casares-Cuevas’s argument regarding his eligibility for safety-valve relief because it was not raised before the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). The government’s motion to strike the reply brief is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-3673