Case ID: f-appx_397/html/0408-01.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. Dwight Anthony WEEMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30271.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael Symington Morgan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Lenell Nussbaum, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Dwight Anthony Weems, Sandstone, MN, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dwight Anthony Weems appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Weems contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a reduction in his sentence, which was imposed upon revocation of supervised release, because it is part of his original sentence for which the Sentencing Guidelines range has been lowered. Assuming, without deciding, that his notice of appeal is timely, see United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 936 (9th Cir.2007), Weems’ arguments are foreclosed by United States v. Morales, 590 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir.2010).

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