Opinion
No. 17-10356
08-21-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Edward Fuentes appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
The parties agree that Fuentes is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Fuentes argues that the district court erred by failing to consider adequately the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and to explain sufficiently its discretionary decision not to reduce his sentence. The district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors in analyzing whether a reduction was warranted. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The court addressed Fuentes's arguments in support of a reduction but concluded that "the goals of public safety and ensuring adequate deterrence . . . are still better served by defendant serving the entirety of his" original 240-month sentence. The court's explanation was sufficient, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966-67 (2018), and was not an abuse of discretion in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.