United States of America v. Gilberto Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GILBERTO MARTINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 21-10324
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00495-SRB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Martinez appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion
for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).1 We have jurisdiction
* 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).
1 The parties assume that Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), applies to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) appeals. We need not reach that issue here because we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief.
FILED
MAY 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-10324
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v.
Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.
Contrary to the arguments raised in Martinez’s pro se briefs, the district
court reasonably concluded that he had not shown extraordinary and compelling
reasons for a sentence reduction and that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not
support relief. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284; see also 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 not supported by the record).
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --