Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dino R. BRADLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-07
Citations: 307 F. App'x 64
Docket Number: No. 07-50494
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dino R. BRADLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 307
Pages: 64–64

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dino R. BRADLEY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-50494.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
Filed Jan. 7, 2009.
Jason P. Gonzalez, Esquire, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephen Gary Frye, Esquire, Law Offices of Stephen G. Frye, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dino R. Bradley appeals from the district court's order denying a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), and we affirm.
Bradley contends that the district court erred by denying his Rule 35 motion, because he did in fact comply with the timing requirements of the rule. This contention fails as the district court correctly found that Bradley could have reasonably anticipated, within one year of sentencing, that the information he ultimately provided would be useful to the government. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(2)(C).
Bradley also contends that the government's refusal to file a motion pursuant to Rule 35(b) was based upon an unconstitutional motive. There is no evidence in the record to support this claim. See Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-86, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992); United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1119 (9th Cir.2003).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.