Case ID: f-appx_217/html/0728-01.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. Edward REDDIC, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-10536.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
    Thomas S. Dougherty, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Arthur L. Allen, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Edward Reddic appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253 and 1291, and we affirm.

Reddic contends that the district court erred by denying the § 2255 motion because it had imposed a sentence based on judge-found facts, contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We disagree. In denying the § 2255 motion, the district court reconsidered Reddic’s sentence under the advisory guidelines and took into consideration the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We conclude the district court properly denied the § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.