Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Olance Antjuan UPTON, Defendant- Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-26
Citations: 434 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 08-30357
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Olance Antjuan UPTON, Defendant— Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 434
Pages: 680–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Olance Antjuan UPTON, Defendant— Appellant.
No. 08-30357.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed May 26, 2011.
Kelly A. Zusman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Stephen R. Sady, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Accordingly, we deny Upton’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Olance Antjuan Upton appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed in the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Upton contends that the district court erred at the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding by: (1) failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence' imposed; (2) failing to address adequately the 100:1 crack/powder disparity; and (3) imposing a sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These contentions are unpersuasive because § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not implicate the interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). See Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-,---, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2692-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Moreover, the district court complied with the two-step inquiry set forth in § 3582(c)(2). See id. at 2691-92.
To the extent that Upton contends that U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) lacks administrative validity, his contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 1131— 32 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.