Case ID: f-appx_364/html/0344-01.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. Raymond Eugene COTHARN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-30230.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Feb. 3, 2010.
    James Edmund Seykora, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Mark Steger Smith, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USBI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana Helena Branch Office, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raymond Eugene Cotharn appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cotharn contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for resentenc-ing pursuant to the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in denying the motion because Cotharn was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).

Moreover, Cotharn’s contention that the district court had authority under United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.2007), to resentence him pursuant to the advisory Guidelines lacks merit. See U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008); see also United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir.2009).

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