United States of America v. Francisco Miguel Angel Najera- Gordillo, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Gonzalez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO MIGUEL ANGEL NAJERA-
GORDILLO, a.k.a. Miguel Angel Gonzalez,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10536
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00383-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Miguel Angel Najera-Gordillo 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,
* 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
SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10536
581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
It is undisputed that Najera-Gordillo is statutorily eligible for a sentence
reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. The district court concluded,
however, that a reduction was not warranted in this case. Najera-Gordillo contends
that the court abused its discretion in reaching this conclusion because a lower
sentence would be sufficient to satisfy all of the relevant sentencing factors. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Najera-Gordillo’s motion in
light of the totality of the circumstances, including Najera-Gordillo’s significant
prison disciplinary record, his long and violent criminal history and career offender
status, his failure to be deterred, and the danger he poses to the public. See
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th
Cir. 2013).
We decline to consider issues raised for the first time in Najera-Gordillo’s
reply brief. See United States v. Kama, 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --