United States of America v. Edward Fuentes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDWARD FUENTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10356
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10356
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 of 2 --