United States v. Kenneth Holloway ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2017
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                           U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    16-10490
    
                    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00344-CW
    
     v.
                                                    MEMORANDUM*
    KENNETH EUGENE HOLLOWAY,
    
                    Defendant-Appellant.
    
                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of California
                        Claudia Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
    
                              Submitted December 18, 2017**
    
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
          Kenneth Eugene Holloway appeals from the district court’s order denying
    
    his second 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.
    
          Holloway argues that the district court erred by failing to consider
    
    
    
          *
                 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).
    adequately his amended Guidelines range, all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
    
    sentencing factors, and by insufficiently explaining its decision. The record
    
    reflects the district court acknowledged the reduced Guidelines range and
    
    Holloway’s eligibility for a reduction. The court noted its reasons for denying
    
    Holloway’s first motion for a sentence reduction in 2012, and then discussed
    
    several of the section 3553(a) factors and its reasons for again denying the
    
    reduction in light of those factors. On this record, we conclude that the court
    
    considered the section 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the sentence. See
    
    United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (describing
    
    what constitutes an adequate explanation and stating that “[t]he district court need
    
    not tick off each of the § 3553(a) factors to show that it has considered them”).
    
          Holloway also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
    
    light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation and other mitigating factors. The district
    
    court did not abuse its discretion in declining to reduce Holloway’s sentence. See
    
    United States v. Dunn, 
    728 F.3d 1151
    , 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Holloway’s 147-
    
    month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a)
    
    sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and
    
    circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.
    
    See id. at 1159-60.
    
          AFFIRMED.
    
    
                                              2                                     16-10490
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: 16-10490

Filed Date: 12/20/2017

Modified Date: 12/20/2017