United States v. Steven Hicks , 540 F. App'x 775 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 02 2013
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. 12-50217
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00625-L
v.
MEMORANDUM *
STEVEN TROY HICKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Steven Troy Hicks appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration of its 2009 denial of his motion for 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 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).
The government contends that Hicks’s appeal should be treated as an appeal
from the 2009 denial of his motion to reduce his sentence and should, thus, be
dismissed as untimely. Contrary to the government’s contention, the record makes
clear that Hicks is appealing from the district court’s order denying his motion for
reconsideration of the 2009 order.
On appeal, Hicks reiterates the arguments made in his motion for a sentence
reduction. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Tapia-Marquez, 361 F.3d 535, 537 (9th
Cir. 2004). Hicks’s motion for reconsideration was filed nearly three years after
the order denying his motion for reduction of sentence issued and contained no
new arguments. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration.
Hicks’s motion for extension of time to file his opening brief is denied as
moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50217