United States of America v. Gabriel Tigmarau

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GABRIEL TIGMARAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-30191
D.C. No. 3:19-cr-00330-SI-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Gabriel Tigmarau 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. 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
FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-30191
Tigmarau contends that the district court failed to (1) explain adequately its
conclusion that Tigmarau did not demonstrate extraordinary and compelling
reasons for relief or (2) consider or address Tigmarau’s arguments related to post-
sentencing developments that weighed in favor of release. The record reflects that
the district court considered Tigmarau’s arguments, including the alleged increase
in Tigmarau’s vulnerability to COVID-19 since his original sentencing, but
concluded that these concerns were ameliorated by Tigmarau’s vaccination status
and the low incidence of infection at his facility. The court further concluded that
release was unwarranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including the
seriousness of the offenses and the need for the sentence to promote respect for the
law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the public.
Contrary to Tigmarau’s contention, this explanation allows meaningful appellate
review. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965-67 (2018).
Finally, the record does not support Tigmarau’s claim that the court implicitly
applied a categorical rule that a medically high-risk inmate housed in a high-risk
facility can never qualify for relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying relief here. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --