Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
United States v. Colson
573 F.3d 915
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-07-23
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- reaching the same conclusion but providing little in the way of reasoning
- "We conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (c)(2) sentence reduction decisions are reviewable in their entirety for abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ."
- abuse of discretion standard of review
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Colson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 31 opinions
ORDER
Andrew Colson (“Colson”) appeals the district court’s discretionary denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction *916 motion. Although we have previously held that such decisions are not renewable on appeal, see United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998), Colson argues that Lowe is no longer good law in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).
We agree. After Booker and Carty each of which held that any element of a sentencing decision, whether discretionary or not, may be “unreasonable” and therefore unlawful Lowe’s conclusion that discretionary sentencing decisions are unreviewable on appeal is no longer good law. We conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction decisions are reviewable in their entirety for abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The order filed March 10, 2009, is hereby VACATED. The government’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED, and its Motion to Toll Briefing Schedule During Pendency of Motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file their briefs within the time set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(a), commencing from the filed date of this order.