United States of America v. MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARTIN CISNEROS, AKA Moose,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10226
D.C. No.
3:14-cr-00044-LRH-WGC-9
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Martin Cisneros 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. “[W]e review § 3582(c)(1) sentence
reduction decisions for abuse of discretion,” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797,
* 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
MAR 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-10226
799 (9th Cir. 2021), and we affirm.
Cisneros contends that the district court clearly erred in concluding on
remand that it did not treat U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding in its initial order denying
compassionate release. However, as this court previously explained, the district
court’s initial order was merely “unclear” as to whether it impermissibly relied on
§ 1B1.13. United States v. Cisneros, 851 F. App’x 785, 786 (9th Cir. 2021).
Contrary to Cisneros’s contentions, there is no objective evidence undermining the
district court’s conclusion that, in both its initial order and on remand, it did not
treat § 1B1.13 as binding.
Cisneros next argues that the district court erred in concluding that his
diabetes did not constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason for release. But
given “the deference we must afford the district court when it makes these
discretionary decisions, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its
discretion with this finding.” United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir.
2021). The district court balanced Cisneros’s diabetes against the treatment he was
receiving and the conditions in his prison, permissibly concluding that there were
no extraordinary and compelling reasons for release.1
1 To the extent that Cisneros’s briefs contain new factual allegations about
COVID-19 transmission within his facility, we do not consider such facts on
appeal. Cisneros remains free to raise such facts with the district court in any
subsequent motion for compassionate release.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-10226
Finally, Cisneros argues that the district court erred in concluding that the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors weighed against release and that he remained a danger to
the public. However, the court properly grounded its decision in the nature and
circumstances of Cisneros’s offense and the need to reflect the seriousness of the
offense and protect the public, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), and reasonably
concluded that Cisneros, who was convicted of conspiring to traffic 17 pounds of
methamphetamine and had served only about a quarter of his sentence for that
offense, remained a danger to the public.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --