Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony F. HICKS, 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 746
Docket Number: No. 06-50245
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony F. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony F. HICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50245.
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.
Anthony F. Hicks, 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
Anthony F. Hicks 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.
Hicks contends that Amendment 599 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines lowered the sentencing range applicable to his convictions. In order for Hicks 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 Hicks'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 Hicks's motion. See United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1232 (9th Cir.1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.