Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe ALMANZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-07
Citations: 395 F. App'x 374
Docket Number: No. 09-10036
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe ALMANZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 374–375

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe ALMANZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10036.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Felipe Almanza, Federal Correctional Institution, Texarkana, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, 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
Felipe Almanza appeals from the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Almanza contends that the district court erred by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence, failing to consider all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to impose an individualized sentence, and treating the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. These contentions are foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-93, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.