United States of America v. Eric Jones

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERIC JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10478
D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00674-JSW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Eric Jones appeals from the district court’s order denying the parties’ joint
stipulation for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jones contends that the district court erred in failing to give adequate
* 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
DEC 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-10478
consideration to the amended Guidelines range and the implications for public
safety of the proposed 10-month reduction. He also argues that the court failed to
explain adequately its denial of the parties’ stipulation. We disagree. The record
reflects that the district court considered the pertinent 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, including Jones’s amended Guidelines range and post-
sentencing conduct, but determined that on the facts of his particular case, a
reduction was unwarranted. Moreover, the district court sufficiently explained its
reasons for declining to reduce Jones’s sentence, which are also apparent from the
record. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
(“[A]dequate explanation in some cases may also be inferred from the PSR or the
record as a whole.”). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying the request to reduce Jones’s sentence. 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 --