Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Troy HICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-02
Citations: 540 F. App'x 775
Docket Number: No. 12-50217
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Troy HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 775–776

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Troy HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50217.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 2, 2013.
Linda A. Frakes, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Troy Hicks, Lompoc, CA, pro se.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Steven Troy Hicks appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its 2009 denial of his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The government contends that Hicks's appeal should be treated as an appeal from the 2009 denial of his motion to reduce his sentence and should, thus, be dismissed as untimely. Contrary to the government's contention, the record makes clear that Hicks is appealing from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the 2009 order.
On appeal, Hicks reiterates the arguments made in his motion for a sentence reduction. We review a district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th Cir.2004). Hicks's motion for reconsideration was filed nearly three years after the order denying his motion for reduction of sentence issued and contained no new arguments. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration. Hicks's motion for extension of time to file his opening brief is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.