Case ID: f-appx_440/html/0543-01.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 MACKLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10431.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 15, 2011.
    
    Filed June 27, 2011.
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard F. Boulware, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, 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

Anthony Macklin appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Macklin contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to due process and U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3, by considering prison disciplinary findings when denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion because the conduct was contested and not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Assuming that the Government was required to meet this burden, the record reflects that the burden was met. See generally United States v. Dare, 425 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir.2005) (recognizing that, “[a]s a general rule, the preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate standard for factual findings used for sentencing”).

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