Thi s disp o s ition is n o t a pp rop riate f

o r p u b li c ati o n and is not prec edent except as * provided by

Ninth Cir. R. 36-3. The Honora

ble Raner C. Collins, United States District Judg e for th e D i s tri ct of ** Arizona, sitting by

designation. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J U LI U S LEW I S a n d TI TU S LEW I S, D efen d an t s - A p p el l an t s. N os . 09- 30308, 09- 30309 D . C . N os. 2: 06 -C R -000 33 -J L Q -1 2: 06 -C R -000 33 -J L Q -2 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J us t i n L . Q ua ke nbus h, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r8, 2010

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: T H O M A S and M . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O L L IN S , D i stri ct Judg e. ** J u liu s a n d T itu s L e w is ap p e a l f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t in p a rt o f th e ir m ot i on s f

or re du ct i on of se nt ence pu rs uantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) ( 20 06 ), base d o n th e c r a c kc o c a in e a m e n d m e n ts to th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . See U . S. 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s M a nua l ( U . S . S . G . ) app. C , a m e nd. 706 ( 2007) . J ul i us a nd

T i tus L ew i s r equest ed a tw o-l evel re du ct i on i n thei r off ense l evel and sent ence s a t th e b o tto m o f

th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e r a n g e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e d u c e d th e ir of f e ns e l e ve l , buti m pos e d s e nt e nc e s a tthe hi ghe re nd of the a m e nde d gui de l i ne r a nge . T he pa rt i e s a r e pr e s um e d t o be f a m i l i a rw i th the r e m a i ni ng f a c t s , a nd w e do n o t r e c o u n t th e m h e r e e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ryto e x p la in o u rd e c is io n . T h e L e w is e s a s s e rt o n ap p e a l th a t ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m is c o n s tru e d its r o le d u r in g th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) h e a r in g b ys ta tin g th a t it w a s lim ite d to det erm i ni ng the se nt ence i tw ou l d h ave i m po se d h ad the am ended g ui del i nes bee n i n eff ec tatthe t i m e of the L ew i se s’ i ni t i al se nt enci ng , there by fore cl osi ng a proper in q u iry o f

th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s ; a n d ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on i n r e duc i ng the L e w i s e s ’ s e nt e nc e s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a f

f irm . W e r e vi e w a18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) s e nt e nc e r e duc t i on de c i s i on f orabus e of d is c r e tio n . U

ni te d State s v . C ol

s on , 57 3 F . 3d 91 5, 91 6 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). “ ‘ A di stri ct c o u rt m a y ab u s e th e ird is c r e tio n if it d o e s n o t ap p lyth e c o rr e c t la w o rif it r e s ts its deci si on on a c l earl y e rr on eous fi nd i ng of m at er i al fa ct . ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. Spr ague , 135 F . 3d 1301, 1304 ( 9th C i r . 1998) ( quot i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . P la in b u ll , 957 F . 2d 724, 725 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ) . “ U nde r l y i ng que s t i ons of l a w a r e r e vi e w e d de no vo . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. Cha ney , 581 F . 3d 1123, 1125 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( c i t i ngU

n ite d S ta te s v . P a u lk , 56 9 F . 3d 10 94 , 10 95 (9th C i r. 20 09 )( per c uri am )) . 1 . R o l e o f

t he D i s t r i c t C o ur t a t Se nt e nc e R e duc t i o n H e a r i ng U nde r18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) , ac ourt“ m a ynotm odi f yat e rm of

i m pr i s onm e nt onc e i tha s be e n i m pos e d. ” H ow e ve r , 18 U . S . C . § 3582( c ) ( 2) c r e a t e s a n e xc e pt i on to th is ru le a n d a llo w s m o d if ic a tio n o f

ate rm o f

im p r is o n m e n t if

th e s e n te n c e is

“ ‘ ba s e d on as e nt e nc i ng r a nge tha tha s s ubs e que nt l ybe e n l ow e r e d bythe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 994( o) ’ a nd m a de r e tr oa c t i ve pu rs uantt o § 99 4(u). ” D i l lon v. U ni ted Stat es , 130 S . C t . 2683, 2690 ( 2010) ( q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) ) . T he S upr e m e C ourti n D i l lon ou t l i ned the tw o-st ep i nq ui rythe di stri ctcourt i s r e qui r e d t o pe r f

orm i n de c i di ng a§ 3582( c ) ( 2) m ot i on. F i r s t , “ § 3582( c ) ( 2) re q u ires th e [ d istrict] co u rt to fo ll o w th e C o m m issio n s in stru ctio n s in [U .S .S .G .] § 1. B 1. 10 t o de t e rm i ne the pr i s one r ’ s e l i gi bi l i tyf oras e nt e nc e m odi f

i c a t i on a nd the ext entof the re du ct i on autho ri ze d. ” I d. at2 6 9 1 . S eco n d , “ § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) i n stru ct s a [ di s tr i c t ] c ourtt o c ons i de ra ny appl i c abl e [ 18 U . S . C . ] § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a nd de t e rm i ne w he the r , i n i t s di s c r e t i on, the r e duc t i on author i z e d byr e f e r e nc e t o the po l i ci es re l evantatst ep on e i s w arrant ed i n w ho l e or i n p artun der the part i cul ar ci rc um st ance s of the ca se . ” I d. a t2692. B a s e d on the na tur e of thi s i nqui ry , the C ourte m pha s i z e d tha tac ons i de r a t i on of “ § 3553( a ) i s appr opr i a t e onl ya tthe s e c ond s t e p of

thi s c i r c um s c r i be d i nqui ry ” and “ i tc a nnots e rve t o tr a ns f orm theproceedi ng s und er§ 3 58 2(c) (2) i nt o p l enary r es ent enci ng proceedi ng s. ” I d. T he L e w i s e s ’ c ont e nt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtm i s c ons true d i t s r ol e dur i ng th e § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) s e n te n c e r e d u c tio n h e a r in g a n d f a ile d to c o n d u c t ap r o p e ra n a ly s is of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i s una va i l i ng. S pe c i f i c a l l y , the L e w i s e s a r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf

a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe i rpos t - c onvi c t i on e f f ort s t ow a r d r e habi l i t a t i on, w hi ch they a ss erti s r el evantun der the “ hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs ” prong of the § 3553( a ) a na l y s i s . T hi s pos i t i on i s be l i e d bythe r e c or d. T he di s tr i c tc ourt , dur i ng the se nt ence re du ct i on hear i ng , expres sl y s t at ed thati tconsi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors and thati tcoul d n oti gn ore the L ew i se s’ ac com pl i shm ent s s i nce th e irin c a r c e r a tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e L e w is e s ’ p o s tc o n v ic tio n r e h ab ilita tio n e f f o rts . T o th e e x te n t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a d e in e x a c t s ta te m e n ts ab o u t th e s c o p e o f its ro l e d u ri n g th e § 3 5 8 2 (c)(2 ) h eari n g , th ese st at em en t s are h arm l ess erro r b ecau se th e L e w is e s ’ s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e r e u n a f f e c te d g iv e n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id c o n s id e rth e irp o s t- c o n v ic tio n r e h ab ilita tio n e f f o rts . See F ED . R. C RIM . P . 5 2 (a) (“[a] n y erro r . . . th atd o es n o taffect sub st an t i al ri g h t s m u st b e d is r e g a r d e d ” ) ; s e e al s o U ni te d State s v . O lano , 507 U . S . 725, 734 ( 1993) ( not i ng tha tf

ora n e rr ort o a f

f e c ts ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s , i t“ m us tha ve a f f e c t e d the ou t com e of the di stri ctcourtproceedi ng s” ). 2. R ed u ct i on of th e L ew i se s’ S en te n ce sT h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tab u se i t s d i scret i o n b y red u ci n g th e L ew i ses’

s e nt e nc e s t o the hi ghe re nd of the i rr e s pe c t i ve a m e nde d gui de l i ne r a nge s . T he di stri ctcourtac kn ow l edged thatthe se nt enci ng rang es w er e l ow er ed and reduced th e L e w is e s ’ s e n te n c e s to te rm s s till w ith in th e a m e n d e d g u id e lin e r a n g e , w h ile r e i t e r a t i ng f

a c t s i tr e l i e d on a tthe t i m e of the i ri ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ngs , s uc h a s the seri o u sn ess o f th ei r o ffen ses an d th e n eed t o p ro t ectth e p u b l i c. T h ese c o n s id e r a tio n s s a tis f

y th e r e q u ir e m e n ts u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d U .S .S .G . § 1 .B 1 .1 0 . See 1 8 U .S .C § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( n a tu r e a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f o f f e n s e ) ; id. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( s e r io u s n e s s o f o f f e n s e ) ; i d. § 3 55 3(a) (2)( C ) ( pu bl i c prot ec t i on ); U .S .S .G . § 1 .B 1 .1 0 c m t. n . 1 ( B ) ( ii) ( p u b lic s a f e ty ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r ly e xe r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i on by s t a t i ng i tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a nd the f a c t s i tr e l i e d on i n de t e rm i ni ng the appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e r e duc t i ons f orthe L e w is e s . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc) ( n o tin g th a t th e “d is tr ic t c o u rt n e e d n o t tic ko f f e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s to show thati thas c on si dere d them ”) . AF F I RME D.