Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0942-01.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. Guillermo BARRETO-ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50452
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 16, 2016 
    
    Filed November 21, 2016
    Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Holley, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. .Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz, Pro Se
    Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz 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, and we affirm.

The government seeks the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Because Barreto-Ortiz is a pro se prisoner, his notice of appeal (“NOA”) is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). The record reflects, and the government does not dispute, that Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA was postmarked on October 15, 2015. Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA must, therefore, have been delivered to prison officials no later than that date. Because judgment was entered on October 1, 2015, his NOA was thus timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)®, (c)(1).

Barreto-Ortiz contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Barreto-Ortiz a sentence reduction based on its determination that he posed a threat to the public in light of the nature of the offense. 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.