Case ID: f-appx_391/html/0595-02.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. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-10287.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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

Colson contends that the district court relied on impermissible factors when it determined that he posed a potential danger to the community. The district court did not err when it relied on Colson’s criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and a prison disciplinary violation. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)(iii).

Colson also contends that even if the factors relied upon by the district court were permissible, remand is appropriate so that this court may provide the district court with guidance as to what factors it may consider when applying the Sentencing Guidelines “Public Safety Consideration” policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Because the district court relied upon permissible factors any guidance would constitute an improper advisory opinion. See United States v. Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2009).

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