Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don BOGARD, aka Michael R. Staten, aka Larry Donnell Bogard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-14
Citations: 375 F. App'x 742
Docket Number: No. 09-50015
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don BOGARD, aka Michael R. Staten, aka Larry Donnell Bogard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 375
Pages: 742–743

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Don BOGARD, aka Michael R. Staten, aka Larry Donnell Bogard, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50015.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 14, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Kevin S. Rosenberg, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karyn H. Bucur, Esquire, Karyn H. Bu-cur Attorney at Law, Laguna Hills, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Don Bogard, pro se.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, 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
Don Bogard appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bogard contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence based upon Amendment 709 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err by concluding that such a reduction would be inconsistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(A), (c); see also United States v. Marler, 527 F.3d 874, 878 n. 1 (9th Cir.2008) (noting that Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.