Case ID: f-appx_667/html/0920-01.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. Eliseo Lopez MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Mateo, a.k.a. Teo, Defendant-Appellant
    No. 15-30362
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2016 
    
    Filed August 1, 2016
    Leif Johnson, Brendan Patrick McCarthy, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Jeffrey K. Starnes, USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Cammi Woodward, Attorney, Woodward Law Firm, PLLC, Billings, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See- Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Elíseo Lopez Martinez 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. We review for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

Lopez Martinez contends that the district court should have reduced his sentence under Amendment 782 in light of his positive post-sentencing conduct, his age, and the fact that he will be deported upon his release from prison. Contrary to Lopez Martinez’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered these circumstances, but concluded that a reduction was not warranted because of the “extreme danger to the community” that Lopez Martinez poses and because of his leadership role in the offense. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Martinez’s motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

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