United States v. Eric Jones , 708 F. App'x 364 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 22 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 16-10478
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00674-JSW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC JONES,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted December 18, 2017**
    Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    Eric Jones appeals from the district court’s order denying the parties’ joint
    stipulation for a sentence reduction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Jones contends that the district court erred in failing to give adequate
    *
    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).
    consideration to the amended Guidelines range and the implications for public
    safety of the proposed 10-month reduction. He also argues that the court failed to
    explain adequately its denial of the parties’ stipulation. We disagree. The record
    reflects that the district court considered the pertinent 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    sentencing factors, including Jones’s amended Guidelines range and post-
    sentencing conduct, but determined that on the facts of his particular case, a
    reduction was unwarranted. Moreover, the district court sufficiently explained its
    reasons for declining to reduce Jones’s sentence, which are also apparent from the
    record. See United States v. Carty, 
    520 F.3d 984
    , 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
    (“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the
    record as a whole.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in denying the request to reduce Jones’s sentence. See
    U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 
    626 F.3d 1092
    , 1096
    (9th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      16-10478
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-10478

Citation Numbers: 708 F. App'x 364

Filed Date: 12/22/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023