Opinion
21-30058
09-23-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIS EDWARD DEAN, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, D.C. No. 2:15-cr-00022-WFN-1 Wm. Fremming Nielsen, District Judge, Presiding
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Demetris Edward Dean appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Dean contends that the district court improperly treated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 as binding and, as a result, wrongly concluded that its discretion was limited to matters of poor health, age, and family circumstances. Dean is correct that § 1B1.13 is not binding on judicial review of § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions filed by defendants. See United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2021). However, the record belies any argument that the district court viewed § 1B1.13 as binding in this case. The court did not reference or cite § 1B1.13, and there is no indication that the court improperly limited its discretion to the circumstances outlined therein. Rather, the court assumed that some of Dean's arguments for a sentence reduction could be persuasive in the appropriate case, but reasonably concluded that Dean had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a reduction of his below-Guideline sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Aruda, 993 F.3d at 799.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.