NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-4297

D.C. No.

Plaintiff - Appellee, 9:18-cr-00009-DWM-2 v.

MEMORANDUM* DEZMEN TAMIRE PATRON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024** Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Dezmen Tamire Patron 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).

Patron contends that the district court did not adequately address his argument that, when considered in the aggregate, his medical issues, conditions of confinement, youth, and sentence disparities warrant compassionate release. Although the court did not discuss each of Patron’s contentions, the record reflects that it understood its broad discretion and sufficiently considered his arguments and circumstances. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 949 (9th Cir. 2022) (the district court “is not required to exhaustively analyze every factor or to expound upon every issue raised by a defendant”). Patron’s assertion that the district court should have given less weight to the seriousness of the offense and greater weight to his mitigating arguments is insufficient to establish that the court abused its discretion. See id. at 948 (“Although Wright may take issue with the balance the court struck, ‘mere disagreement’ with the weight of these factors ‘does not amount to an abuse of discretion.’”) (citation omitted). Finally, Patron has not shown that the district court’s misstatement regarding the Guidelines range had any effect on its decision to deny relief.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-4297