United States v. Francisco Javier Garcia
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco Javier GARCIA, A.K.A. Beaver, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Roger T. Benitez (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Atsushi W. Tashima
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 25 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-50470 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00199-BEN v. MEMORANDUM* FRANCISCO JAVIER GARCIA, a.k.a. Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Garcia appeals pro se 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, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Garcia contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Garcia a sentence reduction based on its determination that a reduction would pose a serious threat to the public in light of his significant criminal history and the circumstances of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Garcia’s contention, the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, did not rely on any clearly erroneous facts, and thoroughly explained its determination that a reduction was unwarranted. See United States v. Trujillo, 713 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-50470