Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0740-01.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. Israel Illijash DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-30227.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 31, 2009.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Todd Green-berg, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeffrey C. Grant, Esquire, Aoki Sakamo-to Grant, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(aR2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Israel Illijash Davis appeals from the district court’s partial denial of his motion to modify his plea agreement and the district court’s judgment imposing a 200-month sentence for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846, and unlawful possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Davis contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) and U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3 when it denied, in part, his motion to modify the plea agreement. However, these legal provisions do not apply to a court’s order regarding a motion to modify a plea agreement. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3.

To the extent Davis contends in his opening brief that the district court did not adequately explain the reasons for its sentence, we reject the contention. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

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