United States of America v. MICHAEL LIRA, AKA Michael Lira Macias

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LIRA, AKA Michael Lira
Macias,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30118
D.C. No. 4:17-cr-00034-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael Lira appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.
Lira contends that the district court should have granted him compassionate
* 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
JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30118
release because he suffers from medical conditions that increase his risk of severe
complications from COVID-19, his offense did not involve violence, sex, or
terrorism, and he has remained discipline-free over the past year. We conclude
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lira’s motion. See
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The court
acknowledged Lira’s medical issues, but reasonably concluded that Lira had not
shown extraordinary and compelling reasons for early release in light of the low
incidence of COVID-19 infections at the prison where he is housed and the vaccine
rollout. Moreover, the court reasonably concluded that, notwithstanding Lira’s
mitigating arguments, a reduction to his sentence of almost seven years was not
warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. On this record,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lira’s motion for
compassionate release. See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th
Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical,
implausible, or without support in the record).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --