United States of America v. Dean Lafromboise

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DEAN LAFROMBOISE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30268
D.C. No. 1:94-cr-00082-SPW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Dean LaFromboise appeals pro se from 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.
FILED
MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

LaFromboise first contends that the district court erred by failing to apply
Amendment 782 to all the counts of conviction. This contention fails because the
court followed the proper procedure. Specifically, the court lowered the base
offense level by two, as required by Amendment 782, and correctly calculated an
amended Guidelines range of 292 to 365 months. It then reduced the overall
sentence to 347 months, within the amended range. The court’s decision to
apportion the 73-month reduction to only two of the counts of conviction was not
improper. See generally Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010)
(describing step one the resentencing process under section 3582(c)(2)). To the
extent LaFromboise argues that the court failed to explain why it did not grant a
greater reduction, the record reflects that the court considered the parties’
arguments and selected a sentence between the low-end sentence requested by
LaFromboise and the high-end sentence requested by the government. See United
States v. Carty, 520 U.S. 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
LaFromboise next contends that the district court abused its discretion
because his age, post-sentencing conduct, and other mitigating factors supported a
greater reduction in his sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

including the nature of LaFromboise’s offenses. See United States v. Dunn, 728
F.3d 1151, 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2013).
Finally, LaFromboise argues that the district court erred at his 2006
resentencing hearing in various ways. These contentions are not cognizable in a
section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831.
AFFIRMED.
15-30268 3

-- 3 of 3 --