United States v. Christopher Lister, Sr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50239
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00058-VAP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHRISTOPHER HENRY LISTER, Sr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Henry Lister, Sr., appeals pro se 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.
Lister argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
*
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).
782. We review the denial of sentence reduction under section 3582(c)(2) for
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.
2013). As the government has consistently conceded, Amendment 782 had the
effect of lowering Lister’s applicable Guidelines range. But the district court did
not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. The district court neither “applied
the wrong law [n]or relied on clearly erroneous findings of material fact,” and it
“properly cited the factors under [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a), and considered those
applicable to [Lister’s] case.” Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159. The district court
reasonably concluded that Lister’s arguments regarding his rehabilitation did not
justify a sentence reduction in light of the serious nature of the offense and Lister’s
criminal history. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159.
The motion to extend time to file a reply brief is denied as moot because
Lister timely filed his reply brief, which has been considered by the court. The
motion to file a sealed supplemental reply brief and the motion to accept late
discovery are granted, but the request for ex parte filing is denied. The Clerk will
file under seal the supplemental reply brief at Docket Entry Nos. 16 and 17.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-50239