Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenges the district court's denial of his motion to reduce a 195-month sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), following his conviction for transporting minors for prostitution. The jurisdiction for the appeal stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). The appellant contends that Amendment 591 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines prohibits the consideration of uncharged conduct during sentencing. However, the court affirms the denial, clarifying that Amendment 591 only limits the use of uncharged conduct in selecting the applicable guideline, while permitting its consideration in determining the base offense level and specific offense characteristics, as per U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2 and § 1B1.3. The court further notes that the district court was not obligated to assess the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Upholding the district court's decision, the court relies on established precedent that a sentence reduction motion may be denied if the amendment does not impact the sentencing range. The court's decision remains unpublished and non-citable in this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, and the denial of the motion is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Consideration of Relevant Conduct in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The legal principle permits the consideration of relevant conduct to determine the base offense level and specific offense characteristics, as outlined in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2 and § 1B1.3.
Reasoning: It allows for relevant conduct to be considered when determining the base offense level and specific offense characteristics, as per U.S.S.G. § 1B1.2 and § 1B1.3 (2003).
Denial of Sentence Reduction Motionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A sentence reduction motion can be denied if the amendment does not alter the defendant’s sentencing range, consistent with prior precedent.
Reasoning: The court cites precedent affirming that if an amendment does not affect a defendant's sentencing range, a reduction motion can be denied.
Interpretation of Amendment 591 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelinessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarifies that Amendment 591 does not prevent the consideration of uncharged conduct at all stages of sentencing, allowing relevant conduct to influence the determination of the base offense level and specific offense characteristics.
Reasoning: Draper misinterprets Amendment 591 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which does not prohibit the consideration of uncharged conduct at all stages of sentencing.
Non-publication and Citation Restrictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling in this case is not to be published or cited within this circuit, except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed, and the disposition is not to be published or cited in this circuit except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.