United States of America v. Fidel Villarreal

Sealed Documents
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FIDEL VILLARREAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50067
D.C. No.
3:08-cr-01332-JAH-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Fidel Villarreal appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s denial of compassionate
release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir.
* 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
NOV 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Sealed Documents 2 22-50067
2022). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villarreal’s motion
for compassionate release. When reviewing motions for compassionate release, a
district court must: (1) “determine whether extraordinary and compelling reasons
warrant a sentence reduction,” (2) “evaluate whether a reduction would be
consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing
Commission,” and (3) “consider and weigh the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) to decide whether the requested sentence reduction is warranted under
the particular circumstances of the case.” Id. at 945 (quotation marks and citations
omitted). “Although a district court must conclude that a defendant satisfies all
three predicates before granting a motion for compassionate release, it may deny
compassionate release if a defendant fails to satisfy any of these grounds.” Id.
Villarreal’s argument that the district court improperly took judicial notice
of facts in other compassionate release cases in its “extraordinary and compelling
reasons” determination lacks merit. The district court did not take judicial notice of
any facts, but merely, as courts do, cited other cases holding that diagnoses of
hypertension and high cholesterol are not “extraordinary or compelling reasons”
warranting compassionate release.
Since Villarreal raises no other arguments for why the district court abused
its discretion in determining that Villarreal failed to demonstrate “extraordinary

-- 2 of 3 --

Sealed Documents 3 22-50067
and compelling reasons” warranting compassionate release, we need not address
Villarreal’s remaining arguments.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --