Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marshall Charles RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-05
Citations: 369 F. App'x 841
Docket Number: No. 08-30283
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marshall Charles RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 841–843

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marshall Charles RICHMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30283.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed March 5, 2010.
Suzanne Bratis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marshall Charles Richmond, Bend, OR, pro se.
Todd Hardy Grover, Bend, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed on October 2, 2009 is withdrawn, and the mandate is recalled.
A new memorandum disposition has been filed concurrently with this order.
No further filings shall be accepted, and the mandate shall be issued forthwith.
MEMORANDUM
Marshall Charles Richmond appeals from the district court's order granting in part his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack cocaine offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Richmond contends that the district court erred by not affording him allocution prior to its resentencing determination. This contention lacks merit. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 43(b); see also Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir.1992). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing. See United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir.2003).
Richmond further contends that the court abused its discretion in not imposing a lower sentence, and that the court failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning. These arguments are belied by the record. See United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915, 916 (9th Cir.2009) (order).
We decline to reach Richmond's additional conclusory contentions because they are beyond the scope of our review of a § 3582 proceeding. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009).
Richmond's motion to strike the correspondence received on June 23, 2009, is granted.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.