Case ID: f-appx_503/html/0505-01.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. Heather SCHUTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30073.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
    
    Filed Dec. 31, 2012.
    James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office Of The U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Billings, MT, J. Bishop Grewell, Assistant U.S., Office of The U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Heather Schütz appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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.

Schütz contends that the district court erred by failing to consider whether she was entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. Contrary to Schutz’s contention, the district court considered her motion. It declined to grant the requested reduction, however, in light of Schutz’s prior sentence reductions, which resulted in her sentence being below the amended Guideline range and the mandatory minimum. The court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.2012).

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