United States v. Andrew Colson , 391 F. App'x 595 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-10287
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:03-CR-00559-RCJ
v. MEMORANDUM *
ANDREW COLSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Colson appeals from the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Colson contends that the district court relied on impermissible factors when
*
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).
it determined that he posed a potential danger to the community. The district court
did not err when it relied on Colson’s criminal history, the nature and
circumstances of the offense, and a prison disciplinary violation. See Dillon v.
United States, No. 09-6338, 2010 WL 2400109 at *6-7 (Jun. 17, 2010); U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10, cmt. 1(B)(iii).
Colson also contends that even if the factors relied upon by the district court
were permissible, remand is appropriate so that this court may provide the district
court with guidance as to what factors it may consider when applying the
Sentencing Guidelines “Public Safety Consideration” policy statement articulated
in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. Because the district court relied upon permissible factors
any guidance would constitute an improper advisory opinion. See United States v.
Kaczynski, 551 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-10287