Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Michael PHILLIPS, aka Mikey, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-19
Citations: 637 F. App'x 372
Docket Number: No. 14-10487
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Michael PHILLIPS, aka Mikey, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Michael PHILLIPS, aka Mikey, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10487.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 12, 2016.
Filed Feb. 19, 2016.
Beverly Wee Sameshima, Assistant U.S. USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alexander Silvert, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDHI-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Edward Michael Phillips appeals the district court's denial of his motion to compel the government to file a motion for further sentencing reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b). We affirm.
Having reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the government's amended sentencing motion was intended to replace its original sentencing motion entirely. Accordingly, any statements in the original motion do not bind the government, even if the statements were otherwise binding. It is clear from the face of the amended motion that the government did not act in bad faith, arbitrarily, or for an impermissible reason. Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, 185-87, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992); United States v. Murphy, 65 F.3d 758, 762 (9th Cir.1995). It was rational for the government to conclude that Defendant is not entitled to a further sentencing reduction; in the interim, the government learned that Defendant had stolen drugs while a cooperating informant.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.