Court Opinion

ID: 4924692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-23 20:00:31.888991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:16.049459
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 23 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 21-30058

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00022-WFN-1

 v.

DEMETRIS EDWARD DEAN,                           MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Washington
                 Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 14, 2021**

Before:      PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Demetris Edward Dean appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Dean contends that the district court improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
as binding and, as a result, wrongly concluded that its discretion was limited to

matters of poor health, age, and family circumstances. Dean is correct that

§ 1B1.13 is not binding on judicial review of § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by

defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021).

However, the record belies any argument that the district court viewed § 1B1.13 as

binding in this case. The court did not reference or cite § 1B1.13, and there is no

indication that the court improperly limited its discretion to the circumstances

outlined therein. Rather, the court assumed that some of Dean’s arguments for a

sentence reduction could be persuasive in the appropriate case, but reasonably

concluded that Dean had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling

circumstances warranting a reduction of his below-Guideline sentence. See 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See

Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    21-30058