Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-19
Citations: 228 F. App'x 747
Docket Number: No. 06-50249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 747–748

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 19, 2007.
Stephen G. Wolfe, Esq., Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jonathan Harrington, Adelanto, CA, pro se.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jonathan Harrington appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduction in his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court's analysis, see United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512 (9th Cir.1996), and so we affirm.
Harrington contends that Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing range applicable to his convictions. In order for Harrington to prevail, Amendment 489 would also have to apply retroactively to his conviction, because Amendment 599 did not modify the proviso in application note 2 that determined Harrington's original sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). However, the Sentencing Commission has not expressly made Amendment 489 retroactive. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(c). Thus, Amendment 599 did not lower the sentencing range applicable to his convictions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harrington's motion. See United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1232 (9th Cir.1998).
We decline to consider arguments Harrington raises for the first time on appeal. See Snow-Erlin v. United States, 470 F.3d 804, 808 n. 1 (9th Cir.2006).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.