Court Opinion

ID: 4148681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-27 21:01:06.29391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:34.534134
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FEB 27 2017

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-30032

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 1:97-cr-00037-DLC

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
VINCENT MARTINEZ,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Montana
                    Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before:      GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Vincent Martinez appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

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

      *
             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).
      Martinez contends that he is entitled to a further sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the nature of Martinez’s

offense and the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did

not abuse its discretion by reducing Martinez’s sentence to the high-end of the

amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i); United States v.

Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Martinez’s

contention, the district court adequately addressed his arguments for a further

reduction and explained its sentencing decision. See United States v. Trujillo, 713
F.3d 1003, 1009, 11 (9th Cir. 2013).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   16-30032