United States of America v. Christopher Abel Nieto

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER ABEL NIETO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10152
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00475-SOM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Abel Nieto 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. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021), 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).
FILED
DEC 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10152
Nieto contends that the district court abused its discretion because it failed to
recognize its discretion to reduce his sentence to a lower term of imprisonment,
believing instead that it was limited to considering only whether Nieto should be
immediately released. We disagree. The record reflects that the district court
determined—after thoroughly considering Nieto’s medical conditions and the risks
posed by COVID-19, his mitigating arguments, and the relevant 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors—that Nieto had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling
circumstances warranting any reduction in his sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). To the extent the court discussed whether Nieto was entitled to
immediate release, it was properly responding to Nieto’s argument that the then-
existing circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic warranted a sentence reduction
to time served. The district court applied the proper legal standard and its decision
to deny relief was both reasonable and supported by the record. Accordingly, it
did not abuse its discretion by denying Nieto’s motion. See United States v.
Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its
discretion only if its application of the correct legal rule was illogical, implausible,
or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --