United States v. Colson

573 F.3d 915, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16297, 2009 WL 2185406

Opinion

ORDER

Andrew Colson (“Colson”) appeals the district court’s discretionary denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction motion. Although we have previously held that such decisions are not renewable on appeal, see United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998), Colson argues that Lowe is no longer good law in light of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

We agree. After Booker and Carty each of which held that any element of a sentencing decision, whether discretionary or not, may be “unreasonable” and therefore unlawful Lowe’s conclusion that discretionary sentencing decisions are unreviewable on appeal is no longer good law. We conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction decisions are reviewable in their entirety for abuse of discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The order filed March 10, 2009, is hereby VACATED. The government’s Motion to Dismiss Appeal is DENIED, and its Motion to Toll Briefing Schedule During Pendency of Motion is GRANTED. The parties shall file their briefs within the time set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 31(a), commencing from the filed date of this order.