Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley HATLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 637 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 15-30164
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley HATLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 431–432

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Stanley HATLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 24, 2016.
Filed Feb. 29, 2016.
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Of-fice of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel .unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2), Hatley's request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James Stanley Hatley appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 3582(c)(2) motion for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.
Hatley contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence based on the substantial assistance he previously provided and his post-sentencing rehabilitative efforts. We disagree. The court understood that the Guidelines range had been lowered, but concluded that the original 60-month sentence, which was below even the recalculated range, was warranted in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See id. at 1158-60. Contrary to Hatley's suggestion, the Guidelines did not require the court to grant a reduction comparable to the reduction that it originally granted. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n. 3.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.