Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0453-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MEMORANDUM \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mathew Douglas WINCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30067
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 22, 2017
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Jessica Anne Betley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant's request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mathew Douglas Winchell 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.

Winchell contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Winchell a sentence reduction based on the large quantities of drugs he supplied over a long period of time, his managerial role in the drug distribution enterprise, and the fact that he engaged in illegal activity in the presence of children. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, notwithstanding the court’s failure to specifically address Winchell’s argument concerning his post-offense conduct, the court’s explanation of its denial was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.