United States v. Chavez-Zarate

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-5742 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:98-cr-05149-JLT-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MARTIN CHAVEZ-ZARATE, AKA Martin Zarate-Chavez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Martin Chavez-Zarate appeals from the district court’s order denying his second motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 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).  Chavez-Zarate contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to address his argument that he is subject to a sentencing disparity under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) because he is not a citizen and therefore is ineligible for programs that could reduce his sentence. The record reflects, however, that Chavez-Zarate did not make this argument in the district court; instead, he argued that his non-citizen status was an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1283-84 (9th Cir. 2021) (describing two-step analysis applicable to compassionate release motions). The court acknowledged that argument, as well as Chavez-Zarate’s other asserted extraordinary and compelling circumstances, but denied the motion on the independent ground that the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief. On this record, the district court did not err in failing to address whether Chavez-Zarate’s non-citizen status resulted in an unwarranted sentencing disparity. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 950-52 (9th Cir. 2022). Moreover, the court adequately explained why the § 3553(a) factors did not support relief, see id. at 948-50, and did not abuse its discretion in reaching this conclusion, see Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284. AFFIRMED. 2 25-5742