Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0569-01.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. Richard Brown TAUMOEPEAU, a.k.a. Haumeti, a.k.a. Tiki, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10301
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Marshall H. Silverberg, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Salina Kanai Althof, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDHI — Federal Public Defender’s Office (Honolulu), Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard Brown Taumoepeau appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Taumoepeau contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. As an initial matter, we reject the government’s argument that this appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when, after considering the nature of Tau-moepeau’s offense and his post-sentencing rehabilitation, it reduced Taumoepeau’s sentence from 480 to 345 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Tau-moepeau’s contention, the record reflects that the district court followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.