United States v. Howard Smith , 575 F. App'x 720 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50569
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-03394-JM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HOWARD ANTON SMITH,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Howard Anton Smith appeals from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, see United
States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Smith contends that the district court abused its discretion because it failed
to consider all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, relied on improper
factors, and placed too much weight on his criminal history. This contention is
unpersuasive. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant
sentencing factors, did not rely on any improper factors, and adequately explained
why a reduction was not warranted. In light of the totality of the circumstances
and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Smith’s motion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151,
1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d
904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular
case is for the discretion of the district court.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50569