FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10361039
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Perales

No. 10361039 · Decided March 21, 2025
No. 10361039 · Ninth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 21, 2025
Citation
No. 10361039
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2394 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:17-cr-00245-DCN-1 v. MEMORANDUM* RAY PERALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Ray Perales appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his 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. As a preliminary matter, the government contends Perales’s notice of appeal * 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). was untimely. Rather than remand for the district court to determine whether Perales is correct that he has good cause for the untimeliness, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4), we instead affirm on the merits. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 941-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (timely notice of appeal is not jurisdictional in a criminal case). The district court concluded that there were no changes in sentencing law or other circumstances that constituted extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). It further concluded that a sentence reduction would be inconsistent with the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. Perales has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in reaching these conclusions. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review). The court considered all of Perales’s arguments and thoroughly explained why they did not warrant relief. See id. at 948-50. Moreover, the court’s findings were supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 2 24-2394
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for United States v. Perales in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 21, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10361039 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →