Case ID: f-appx_531/html/0829-01.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. Anthony D. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-10148.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2013.
    
    Filed June 24, 2013.
    Ryan P. Dejoe, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anthony D. Williams, Anthony, TX, pro se.
    Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, 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

Federal prisoner Anthony D. Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for clarification of his orally pronounced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Williams contends that the district court should have issued an order clarifying that he was not sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because the record supports the district court’s conclusion that Williams was sentenced as a career offender, the court did not err by denying his motion.

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