USA V. EDWARD FUENTES, No. 17-10356 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-10356 D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS v. MEMORANDUM* EDWARD FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2018** Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Edward Fuentes 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. We review discretionary denials of sentence reduction motions for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Chaney, 581 F.3d 1123, 1125 (9th Cir. * 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). 2009), and we affirm. The parties agree that Fuentes is statutorily eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Fuentes argues that the district court erred by failing to consider adequately the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and to explain sufficiently its discretionary decision not to reduce his sentence. The district court properly considered the section 3553(a) factors in analyzing whether a reduction was warranted. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827 (2010). The court addressed Fuentes’s arguments in support of a reduction but concluded that “the goals of public safety and ensuring adequate deterrence . . . are still better served by defendant serving the entirety of his” original 240-month sentence. The court’s explanation was sufficient, see Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966-67 (2018), and was not an abuse of discretion in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, see United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60 (9th Cir. 2013). AFFIRMED. 2 17-10356

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.