United States v. Eddie Hall , 671 F. App'x 661 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30038
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00116-RHW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDDIE RAY HALL, a.k.a. Eddy R. Hall,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Robert H. Whaley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016 **
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Eddie Ray Hall 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.
*
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).
Hall contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment
782 to the Guidelines because the district court erred in concluding that his prior
convictions qualified him as a career offender. We need not reach that question
because the district court stated that, even if Hall were eligible for a sentence
reduction, it would not grant one. We review that determination for an abuse of
discretion, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013), and
find none. Contrary to Hall’s claim, the court correctly calculated the amended
Guidelines range. It explained that a reduction to a sentence within that range was
not warranted, notwithstanding Hall’s positive post-sentencing conduct, in light of
Hall’s criminal history and the threat he poses to the public. These were proper
considerations. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30038