Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. v. JACKSON, 344 Fed.Appx. 391 (9th Cir. 2009)
344 Fed.Appx. 391
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-09-02
- Topic
- general
U.S. v. JACKSON, 344 Fed.Appx. 391 (9th Cir. 2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Keith JACKSON,Defendant-Appellant. No. 08-50259.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted August 20, 2009.[fn*] Filed September 2, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.][fn*] The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P.34(a)(2).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed U.S. v. JACKSON, 344 Fed.Appx. 391 (9th Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
U.S. v. JACKSON,344 Fed.Appx. 391(9th Cir. 2009)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Keith JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50259.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 20, 2009.fn*
Filed September 2, 2009.
Page 392
Kevin Feldis, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Willie Keith Jackson, Anthony, TX, pro se.
Willie Keith Jackson, Anthony, TX, pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:04-cr-00141-RRB.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUMfn**
Willie Keith Jackson appeals pro se from the district court's order reducing his sentence to 180 months imprisonment pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The government's contention that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision regarding the sentence reduction is foreclosed.See United States v.Colson,573 F.3d 915,915-16(9th Cir. 2009) (Order).
Jackson contends that the district court abused its discretion under18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by, among other things, not reducing his sentence further. The record reflects that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it considered the factors under18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sentenced Jackson consistently with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.See18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);see also United States v.Hicks,472 F.3d 1167,1171(9th Cir. 2007). Jackson's contention that the district court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing hearing, at which he was entitled to personally appear, also fails.SeeFed.R.Crim.P.43(b)(4);see also Hicks,472 F.3d at 1171(noting that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not constitute full resentencings).
We decline to consider Jackson's remaining contentions as they are not properly within the scope of this appeal.SeeU.S.S.G. §1B1.10n. 2.
Jackson's motion for the court to take judicial notice of docketing errors is denied.AFFIRMED.
The government's contention that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's discretionary decision regarding the sentence reduction is foreclosed.See United States v.Colson,573 F.3d 915,915-16(9th Cir. 2009) (Order).
Jackson contends that the district court abused its discretion under18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) by, among other things, not reducing his sentence further. The record reflects that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it considered the factors under18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and sentenced Jackson consistently with the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.See18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);see also United States v.Hicks,472 F.3d 1167,1171(9th Cir. 2007). Jackson's contention that the district court erred by failing to conduct a full resentencing hearing, at which he was entitled to personally appear, also fails.SeeFed.R.Crim.P.43(b)(4);see also Hicks,472 F.3d at 1171(noting that § 3582(c)(2) proceedings do not constitute full resentencings).
We decline to consider Jackson's remaining contentions as they are not properly within the scope of this appeal.SeeU.S.S.G. §1B1.10n. 2.
Jackson's motion for the court to take judicial notice of docketing errors is denied.AFFIRMED.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩
- The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument.SeeFed.R.App.P.34(a)(2). ↩
- This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ↩