Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 472 F. App'x 532
Docket Number: No. 11-50139
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 532–533

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50139.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.
Filed March 20, 2012.
Michael Tanaka, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding. DC No. 2:03-cr-0072 PA.
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Kevin Freeman appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Freeman contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence based on the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered penalties for crack cocaine offenses. The district court acted within its discretion in denying Freeman a reduction in his sentence. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(B) (2010) ("If the original term of imprisonment constituted a non-guideline sentence determined pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), a further reduction generally would not be appropriate."); Dillon v. United States, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691-92, 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.