Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carson MAYNARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-24
Citations: 675 F. App'x 750
Docket Number: No. 16-30016
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carson MAYNARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 750–751

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carson MAYNARD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30016
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 24, 2017
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Colin Michael Rubich, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee
Carson Maynard, Pro Se
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Carson Maynard appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order granting in part his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Maynard contends that the district court should have further reduced his sentence. The record reflects that the district court correctly calculated the amended Guidelines range and concluded that, in light of Maynard's previous substantial assistance to the government and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, a sentence below the amended range was warranted. Maynard is incorrect that the Guidelines required the court to grant a departure comparable to its original departure. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the new sentence or in denying Maynard's motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mark, 795 F.3d 1102, 1104 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.