United States of America v. Carlos Javier Lopez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARLOS JAVIER LOPEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10363
D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00375-RLH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Javier Lopez 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, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Lopez argues that the district court erred by failing to consider and address
his non-frivolous arguments in favor of a reduced sentence and by denying his
section 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his post-sentencing prison
disciplinary record. The record reflects that the district court considered the
relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties’ arguments.
See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The
district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its
reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”); United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, considering the 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Lopez’s prison disciplinary record and the need to protect the public, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s motion. See United States v.
Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
15-10363 2

-- 2 of 2 --