Case Name: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STEWART, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 349 F. App'x 234
Docket Number: No. 08-10393
Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 234–235

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond STEWART, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10393.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 26, 2009.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Raymond Stewart appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.2009) (order). We affirm.
Stewart contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion after considering Stewart's history and characteristics, including Stewart's escape from federal prison while serving time for the sentence he sought to be reduced. The district court properly took these facts into account when it considered the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Col-son, 573 F.3d at 916 (abuse of discretion standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.