Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0750-01.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. Carson MAYNARD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30016
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin Michael Rubich, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
    Carson Maynard, Pro Se
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, 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

Carson Maynard appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Maynard contends that the district court should have further reduced his sentence. The record reflects that the district court correctly calculated the amended Guidelines range and concluded that, in light of Maynard’s previous substantial assistance to the government and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, a sentence below the amended range was warranted. Maynard is incorrect that the Guidelines required the court to grant a departure comparable to its original departure. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the new sentence or in denying Maynard’s motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mark, 795 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir. 2015).

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