Case ID: f-appx_256/html/0085-01.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 T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-30409.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Miyake, Esq., USSE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Paula T. Olson, Esq., Burgess Fitzer, PS, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard T. Brown appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider its decision not to impose a materially different sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Brown contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and impermissibly relied on his drug addiction as a reason not to resentence. We disagree, and we affirm. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).

Brown’s request to transfer this case to a different district court judge is denied as moot.

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