NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 12 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-1869 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cr-00309-AJB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* FELIZA RENTERIA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 10, 2024 ** Pasadena, California

Before: R. NELSON, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Feliza Renteria appeals the district court’s denial of her motion for

compassionate relief. Renteria pleaded guilty to knowingly importing heroin into

the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. She was sentenced to

seventy-two months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised

* 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). release. Approximately two years into her sentence, Renteria sought compassionate

release based on her end-stage kidney disease and other health conditions. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the denial of a motion for

compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 944 (9th Cir. 2022). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Renteria’s motion

for compassionate release. The court acknowledged Renteria’s serious medical

conditions but found that she had failed to prove extraordinary and compelling

reasons warranting a sentence reduction because her conditions were appropriately

managed in prison, and the Bureau of Prisons could provide additional necessary

care, including a kidney transplant, if Renteria met certain prerequisites for

treatment.1 See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Particularly given there was no

binding definition of extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate

release at the time the district court decided Renteria’s motion, see U.S.S.G.

1B1.13 (2007) (amended 2023), the district court did not abuse its discretion by

denying relief.

AFFIRMED.

1 The district court invited Renteria to file a subsequent motion for compassionate release if she is refused necessary care after becoming eligible in the future, the district court invited a subsequent motion for compassionate release.

2 23-1869