Case ID: f-appx_375/html/0742-01.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. Don BOGARD, aka Michael R. Staten, aka Larry Donnell Bogard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-50015.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 14, 2010.
    Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kevin S. Rosenberg, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Don Bogard, pro se.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Don Bogard appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bogard contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err by concluding that such a reduction would be inconsistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(A), (c); see also United States v. Marler, 527 F.3d 874, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively).

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