Opinion
No. 08-30283.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
October 2, 2009.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:03-cr-00370-GMK.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Marshall Charles Richmond appeals from the district court's order granting in part his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack cocaine offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Richmond contends that the district court erred by not affording him allocution prior to its resentencing determination. This contention lacks merit. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b); see also Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003).
Richmond further contends that the court abused its discretion in not imposing a lower sentence, and that the court failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning. These arguments are belied by the record. See United States v. Colson, 573 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2009)(order).
We decline to reach Richmond's additional conclusory contentions because they are beyond the scope of our review of a § 3582 proceeding. See United States v. Leniear, 568 F.3d 779, 783 (9th Cir. 2009).
Richmond's motion to strike the correspondence received on June 23, 2009, is granted.
AFFIRMED.