Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 85
Docket Number: No. 06-30409
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 85–85

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard T. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-30409.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Bruce F. Miyake, Esq., USSE—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Paula T. Olson, Esq., Burgess Fitzer, PS, Tacoma, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard T. Brown appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider its decision not to impose a materially different sentence following a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Brown contends that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court did not consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and impermissibly relied on his drug addiction as a reason not to resentence. We disagree, and we affirm. See United States v. Combs, 470 F.3d 1294, 1296-97 (9th Cir.2006); United States v. Plouffe, 445 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1158, 126 S.Ct. 2314, 164 L.Ed.2d 832 (2006).
Brown's request to transfer this case to a different district court judge is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.