NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 24 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2078 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:18-cr-00399-JAD-BNW-1 v.

MEMORANDUM*

YOEL GUERRA-VINALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 22, 2025**

Before: CLIFTON, CALLAHAN, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Yoel Guerra-Vinales appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and 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). 1 Guerra-Vinales’s request for a certificate of appealability, contained within the opening brief, is unnecessary. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1. Guerra-Vinales contends that he presented extraordinary and compelling

reasons for release—including the COVID-19 pandemic as well as his age,

medical conditions, and rehabilitation—and that the district court erred by failing

to consider his arguments or adequately explain its decision to deny relief.

However, the record reflects that the court fully considered Guerra-Vinales’s

arguments and sufficiently explained its decision. See Chavez-Meza v. United

States, 585 U.S. 109, 115-17 (2018). The court did not abuse its discretion in

finding that Guerra-Vinales’s circumstances did not rise to the level of

extraordinary and compelling, nor did it err by declining to address the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors after making that determination. See United States v.

Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review and

explaining that “a district court that properly denies compassionate release need

not evaluate each step”).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or in the

reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2078