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: 2009-07-23
Citations: 573 F.3d 915
Docket Number: No. 08-10287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 573
Pages: 915–916

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew COLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2009.
Filed July 23, 2009.
Franny A. Forsman, Federal Public Defender, Jason F. Carr, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for the appellant.
Gregory A. Brower, United States Attorney, Peter S. Levitt, Assistant United States Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for the appellee.
Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
Andrew Colson ("Colson") appeals the district court's discretionary denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction motion. Although we have previously held that such decisions are not renewable on appeal, see United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998), Colson argues that Lowe is no longer good law in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
We agree. After Booker and Carty each of which held that any element of a sentencing decision, whether discretionary or not, may be "unreasonable" and therefore unlawful Lowe's conclusion that discretionary sentencing decisions are unreviewable on appeal is no longer good law. We conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction decisions are reviewable in their entirety for abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The order filed March 10, 2009, is hereby VACATED. The government's Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED, and its Motion to Toll Briefing Schedule During Pendency of Motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file their briefs within the time set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(a), commencing from the filed date of this order.