Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0871-01.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. Bernard LEYVA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10343
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED May 31, 2016
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USRE — Office of the US Attorney-Reno, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Amy B. Cleary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Leyva argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider and address his non-frivolous mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties’ arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); 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.”). Leyva next contends that, in light of his efforts at rehabilitation and his familial support, it was substantively unreasonable for the district court to deny his motion. Considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Leyva’s in-custody disciplinary record, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013).

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