United States of America v. Julius Darnell Roberts

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
JULIUS DARNELL ROBERTS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-30031
D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00282-FVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Fred L. Van Sickle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Julius Darnell Roberts appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-30031 2
Roberts contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion to reduce his sentence because the court double counted his criminal
history and failed to consider adequately his post-conviction rehabilitation. The
court considered Roberts’s post-conviction rehabilitation and properly based its
decision on public safety considerations and the need for deterrence. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.
2010).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --