Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0343-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Darnell ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30031.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
    Stephanie A. Van Marter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julius Darnell Roberts appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Roberts contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reduce his sentence because the court double counted his criminal history and failed to consider adequately his post-conviction rehabilitation. The court considered Roberts’s post-conviction rehabilitation and properly based its decision on public safety considerations and the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).