United States of America v. Robert Aron Sprenkle

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ARON SPRENKLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10146
D.C. No.
1:13-cr-00146-AWI-BAM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Robert Aron Sprenkle appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.1
* 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). Sprenkle’s request for oral
argument is denied.
1 The order to show cause issued on November 30, 2021, is discharged.
FILED
JAN 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10146
As an initial matter, the government is correct that, because Sprenkle waited
nearly three months to file his motion for reconsideration, his appeal is timely only
as to the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. See United
States v. Belgarde, 300 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th Cir. 2002) (motion for
reconsideration tolls the time to appeal the underlying order only if it is filed
within the time for appeal). However, even if Sprenkle’s appeal were timely as to
both orders, he has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying
relief. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (denial of
compassionate release is reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Lopez-
Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 2013) (denial of motion for reconsideration is
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Contrary to Sprenkle’s argument, nothing in the
court’s orders indicates that it gave any consideration to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13.
Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, because the protocols in Sprenkle’s
prison had reduced the number of COVID-19 infections to zero, Sprenkle had
failed to show extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. Finally, the
record belies Sprenkle’s assertion that he offered new evidence justifying
reconsideration.
Sprenkle’s motion to supplement the record is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --