United States of America v. ALEJANDRO ALEX INCERA, AKA Alexander Jiminez-Incera

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO ALEX INCERA, AKA
Alexander Jiminez-Incera,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10335
D.C. No.
2:18-cr-00169-JCM-NJK-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Alex Incera 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, and we affirm.
Incera contends that the district court should have granted his motion
* 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
JUN 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10335
because his history of Guillain-Barre syndrome (“GBS”), in combination with his
other medical conditions and his mother’s recent cancer diagnosis, constitute an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in finding otherwise. See United States v. Aruda, 993
F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). As the court explained, Incera’s history of GBS did
not justify his refusal to be vaccinated because the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention recommends vaccination for those who have had GBS. Moreover, the
record does not support Incera’s assertion that he has other medical issues, such as
asthma. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
developments with Incera’s mother did not constitute an extraordinary and
compelling reason to grant relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --