Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamar EDISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-07
Citations: 436 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 09-50306
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamar EDISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamar EDISON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50306.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 7, 2011.
Dorothy C. Kim, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kurt J. Mayer, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, 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
Lamar Edison, Jr., appeals from the 262-month sentence imposed following the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Edison contends the district court erred at the section 3582(c)(2) proceeding by treating the policy statement articulated in U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b) as binding, even though its promulgation and implementation violated the Separation of Powers doctrine and Administrative Procedure Act. This contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 1131-33 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.