United States of America v. Carson Maynard

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARSON MAYNARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30016
D.C. No. 1:07-cr-00035-DLC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Carson Maynard appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order granting in part 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).
FILED
JAN 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-30016
Maynard contends that the district court should have further reduced his
sentence. The record reflects that the district court correctly calculated the
amended Guidelines range and concluded that, in light of Maynard’s previous
substantial assistance to the government and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, a
sentence below the amended range was warranted. Maynard is incorrect that the
Guidelines required the court to grant a departure comparable to its original
departure. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) & cmt. n.3. We conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the new sentence or in
denying Maynard’s motion for reconsideration. See United States Dunn, 728 F.3d
1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. Mark, 795 F.3d 1102, 2014 (9th Cir.
2015).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --