Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0318-02.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. Carlos Javier LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10363
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 14, 2016 
    
    FILED June 20, 2016
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE—Office of the US Attomey-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlos Javier Lopez, Pro Se.
    Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. ■ See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Javier Lopez appeals from the district court’s order denying 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.

Lopez argues that the district court erred by failing to consider and address his non-frivolous arguments in favor 'of a reduced sentence and by denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his post-sentencing prison disciplinary record. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties’ arguments. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, considering the 18 U.S.C; § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez’s prison disciplinary record and the need to protect the public, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

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