Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward REDDIC, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-16
Citations: 217 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 05-10536
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward REDDIC, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward REDDIC, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-10536.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 8, 2007.
Filed Jan. 16, 2007.
Thomas S. Dougherty, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Arthur L. Allen, Esq., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HALL, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Edward Reddic appeals from the district court's denial of his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and 1291, and we affirm.
Reddic contends that the district court erred by denying the § 2255 motion because it had imposed a sentence based on judge-found facts, contrary to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). We disagree. In denying the § 2255 motion, the district court reconsidered Reddic's sentence under the advisory guidelines and took into consideration the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. We conclude the district court properly denied the § 2255 motion.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.