United States of America v. ZACHARY WAYNE JONES, AKA Zachary W. Jones, AKA Kelodragon

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ZACHARY WAYNE JONES, AKA Zachary
W. Jones, AKA Kelodragon,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30166
D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00091-WFN-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Zachary Wayne Jones 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. 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
MAR 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30166
Jones contends that the district court overlooked several of his arguments for
release, relied on clearly erroneous facts, inadequately explained its decision to
deny the motion, and may have wrongly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding.
The record reflects, however, that the district court understood Jones’s arguments
and adequately explained why it believed Jones had not shown extraordinary and
compelling reasons for compassionate release. See Chavez-Meza v. United States,
138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018). Moreover, the court did not rely on any clearly
erroneous facts, and did not cite § 1B1.13 or otherwise indicate that it believed the
Guideline constrained its analysis. In light of the reasons provided by the district
court, it did not abuse its discretion by denying Jones’s motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --