USA V. MARK BLANKENSHIP, No. 18-10056 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 05 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 18-10056 D.C. No. 1:12-cr-00641-JMS-1 v. MARK A. BLANKENSHIP, ORDER* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted February 15, 2019** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: TALLMAN, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. In 2012, Mark Blankenship entered a guilty plea for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. He appeals the district court’s grant of a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence. * 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). 1. “Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte.” Symantec Corp. v. Glob. Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). Appealing a decision on a Rule 35(b) motion must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. United States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to correct a sentence “imposed in violation of law.” Unless the defendant appeals a question of law, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. “If the district court has stated the correct legal standard when reducing a sentence under Rule 35(b), we have no appellate jurisdiction to review its decision.” Tadio, 663 F.3d at 1053. The district court here stated the correct legal standard. See id. at 1045, 1052. Accordingly, “we lack jurisdiction to review the court’s exercise of its discretion in choosing the amount of the sentence reduction awarded.” See id. at 1045. This appeal is DISMISSED.1 1 The pending motion is denied. (Docket No. 52). 2

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.