Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Darnell ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-21
Citations: 481 F. App'x 343
Docket Number: No. 12-30031
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Darnell ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 481
Pages: 343–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Darnell ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-30031.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
Stephanie A. Van Marter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Julius Darnell Roberts appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Roberts contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reduce his sentence because the court double counted his criminal history and failed to consider adequately his post-conviction rehabilitation. The court considered Roberts's post-conviction rehabilitation and properly based its decision on public safety considerations and the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).