United States v. Kory Crossman ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10215
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00145-KJD
v.
MEMORANDUM *
KORY ALLEN CROSSMAN, a.k.a. Lobes,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Kory Allen Crossman 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.
Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
*
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).
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court
procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to
adequately explain its decision and respond to Crossman’s mitigating arguments,
and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court
properly followed the approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817,
826-27 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the
district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence
within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently
explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 U.S. 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released
from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that
Crossman will be eligible for parole. See United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160,
1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).
Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when
it declined to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on
its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the public in light of
his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt.
n.1(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10215