Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-02
Citations: 391 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 08-10287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 2010.
Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Andrew Colson appeals from the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Colson contends that the district court relied on impermissible factors when it determined that he posed a potential danger to the community. The district court did not err when it relied on Colson's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offense, and a prison disciplinary violation. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)(iii).
Colson also contends that even if the factors relied upon by the district court were permissible, remand is appropriate so that this court may provide the district court with guidance as to what factors it may consider when applying the Sentencing Guidelines "Public Safety Consideration" policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Because the district court relied upon permissible factors any guidance would constitute an improper advisory opinion. See United States v. Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.