United States of America v. Bernard Leyva

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BERNARD LEYVA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-10343
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00165-JCM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Bernard Leyva appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for
sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Leyva argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider
* 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
MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-10343
and address his non-frivolous mitigating arguments. The record reflects that the
district court considered the relevant sentencing factors and appropriately
addressed the parties’ arguments. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 991-
92 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 920
(9th Cir. 2011) (“The district court is not required to provide a detailed explanation
as to each of its reasons for rejecting every argument made by counsel.”). Leyva
next contends that, in light of his efforts at rehabilitation and his familial support, it
was substantively unreasonable for the district court to deny his motion.
Considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Leyva’s in-custody disciplinary record, the district court
did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1159-60
(9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --