United States v. Gomez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-5657

D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:09-cr-01247-SRB-1 v.

MEMORANDUM* PHILLIP GOMEZ, AKA Anthony Lewis,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Phillip Gomez 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, and we affirm.

Gomez contends the district court overlooked factors in his favor and did not *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. adequately explain its decision to deny relief. The court, however, expressly acknowledged Gomez’s arguments regarding his mother’s health challenges and his positive prison record and sufficiently explained why he was not entitled to compassionate release. See United States v. Wright, 46 F.4th 938, 950 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[I]f the context and the record reflect that the sentencing judge considered the defendant’s substantive arguments and offered a reasoned basis for his or her decision, a judge need not provide a lengthy explanation for his or her sentencing decision.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Gomez lacked extraordinary and compelling circumstances. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i); Wright, 46 F.4th at 944 (stating standard of review). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in concluding that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support compassionate release, which was well supported by the record. See Wright, 46 F.4th at 948.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-5657