N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. AB R AHAM FERREL GUTIER REZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 12-50351

12-50436 D.C . Nos. 2:03-c r-00460-R SW L 2:03-c r-00460-ODW M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right, II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PREGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . In the se c onsolida

te d a ppe a ls, Abra

ham Fe rre l Gutie rre z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting his 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) m otion for re d uc tion of se nte nc e and the orde r de ny i ng his m otion for re c o nside ration. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion, s e eUnite d



# FIL ED MAR 17 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).State

s v . Austin , 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th C i r. 2012); Unite d State s v . TapiaMarque z , 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th C ir. 2004), a nd we a ffirm . Pre lim i n arily , we re

je c t the gove rnm e nt’ s c onte ntion tha t we la c k jurisdic tion ove r this a

ppe a l. Se eUnite d State

s v . Dunn , 728 F.3d 1151, 1155-58 (9th C ir. 2013). The distric t c ourt gra

nte d Gutie rre z ’ s se c tion 3582(c )(2) m otion, re duc ing his se nte n c e from

200 to 160 months. Gutierre z c o nte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt proc e d ura lly e rre d by

fa i ling to e xpla in a de q

uate ly why his post-sente nc ing c onduc t wa s not suffic ie nt to support a se nte nc e re duc tion to 151 m onths. This c onte ntion is unpersua sive . The re c ord re fle c ts tha t the distric t c ourt c onside re d Gutie rre z ’ s post-se nte nc ing re ha bilita tion a nd a de quate l y

e xpla ine d the 160-m onth se nte nc e . S

e eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ). Gutie rre z a lso c o nte nds tha t the se nte n c e is substa

ntive ly unre a sona

ble be c a use the distric t c ourt ga

v e insuffic ie nt we ight to his post-se nte n c i ng c onduc t and e xc e s sive we i ght to the drug qua ntity re lie d on a

t the origina l se nte nc ing. The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in im

posing Gutierre z ’ s se nte nc e . Se e Dunn , 728 F.3d a

t 1157. In light of the

tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s a nd the se c t ion 3553(a) se nte n c ing fa c tors, these nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona ble . Se e id. at 1159-60; Unite d State s v . Gutie rre

z-Sanc he z , 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th C ir. 12 - 5 03 5 1 & 1 2 - 5 0 4 3 6 22009) (“ The we ight to begive n the va rious fa c tors in a

pa rtic ula r c a s e is for the disc re tion of thedistric t c o urt.” ). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny ing Gutie rre z ’ s m otion for re c onside ration. Se eTapia-Marque z , 361 F.3d a

t 537. AFFIRM E D.

12 - 5 03 5 1 & 1 2 - 5 0 4 3 6 3