Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Carzell GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-03
Citations: 364 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 08-30270
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Carzell GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 364
Pages: 345–345

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Carzell GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30270.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Feb. 3, 2010.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Douglas B. Whalley, Michael Symington Morgan, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Zenon P. Olbertz, Law Offices of Zenon P. Olbertz, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tony Carzell Green appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Green contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for resentenc-ing pursuant to the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in denying the motion because Green was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).
To the extent that Green argues that he is entitled to be resentenced under the advisory Guidelines pursuant to United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.2007), this argument also lacks merit. U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008); see also United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.