United States of America v. Bruce Edward Jimerson

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BRUCE EDWARD JIMERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10007
D.C. No. 2:01-cr-00335-LRH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Edward Jimerson appeals from the district court’s order denying his
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive
amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered penalties for crack cocaine
FILED
SEP 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10007 2
offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimerson contends that the district court violated his right to due process by
failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying a sentence reduction. The
district court acted within its discretion when it denied Jimerson a sentence
reduction based on numerous instances of prison misconduct and public safety
concerns. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d
1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). The court did not violate Jimerson’s due process rights
by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning his prison misconduct,
where Jimerson admitted to the misconduct in his section 3582(c)(2) motion.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --