United States v. Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      NOV 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-50452
    Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:07-cr-02882-BEN
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    GUILLERMO BARRETO-ORTIZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of California
    Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 16, 2016**
    Before:       LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Guillermo Barreto-Ortiz 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.
    The government seeks the dismissal of this appeal as untimely. Because
    *
    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).
    Barreto-Ortiz is a pro se prisoner, his notice of appeal (“NOA”) is deemed filed
    when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(c)(1). The record reflects, and the government does not dispute, that
    Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA was postmarked on October 15, 2015. Barreto-Ortiz’s NOA
    must, therefore, have been delivered to prison officials no later than that date.
    Because judgment was entered on October 1, 2015, his NOA was thus timely filed.
    See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (c)(1).
    Barreto-Ortiz contends that the district court abused its discretion by
    denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the
    Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied
    Barreto-Ortiz a sentence reduction based on its determination that he posed a threat
    to the public in light of the nature of the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.
    n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 
    626 F.3d 1092
    , 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                  15-50452
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-50452

Judges: Leavy, Berzon, Murguia

Filed Date: 11/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024