USA V. CARLOS LOPEZ, No. 15-10363 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED JUN 20 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 15-10363 D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00375-RLH v. MEMORANDUM* CARLOS JAVIER LOPEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Roger L. Hunt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Carlos Javier Lopez 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Lopez argues that the district court erred by failing to consider and address his non-frivolous arguments in favor of a reduced sentence and by denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion based exclusively on his post-sentencing prison disciplinary record. The record reflects that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately addressed the parties’ arguments. See United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Lopez’s prison disciplinary record and the need to protect the public, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s motion. See United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10363

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.