United States v. Olance Upton ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 26 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-30357
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00299-BR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
OLANCE ANTJUAN UPTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Olance Antjuan Upton appeals from the 168-month sentence imposed in the
district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of
sentence. 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Accordingly, we deny Upton’s request for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Upton contends that the district court erred at the § 3582(c)(2) proceeding
by: (1) failing to provide a sufficient explanation for the sentence imposed; (2)
failing to address adequately the 100:1 crack/powder disparity; and (3) imposing a
sentence greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). These contentions are unpersuasive because § 3582(c)(2) proceedings
do not implicate the interests identified in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220(2005). See Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683, 2692-93 (2010). Moreover,
the district court complied with the two-step inquiry set forth in § 3582(c)(2). See
id. at 2691-92.
To the extent that Upton contends that U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) lacks
administrative validity, his contention is foreclosed by United States v. Fox, 631
F.3d 1128, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 08-30357