United States v. Kory Crossman

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Kory Crossman

681 F. App'x 652

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 14, 2017

Docket16-10215

StatusUnpublished

This text of 681 F. App'x 652 (United States v. Kory Crossman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Kory Crossman, 681 F. App'x 652 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Kory Allen Crossman appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to adequately explain its decision and respond to Cross-man’s mitigating arguments, and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court properly followed the approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that Crossman will be eligible for parole. See United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).

Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when it declined' to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the ppblic in light of his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Kory Allen Crossman appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Crossman contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He argues that the district court procedurally erred by failing to calculate the amended Guidelines range, failing to adequately explain its decision and respond to Cross-man’s mitigating arguments, and relying on a clearly erroneous fact. The record reflects that the district court properly followed the approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). The parties agreed on the amended Guidelines range and the district court understood that Crossman was eligible for a reduction to a sentence within that range. However, the court declined to grant a reduction. It sufficiently explained its decision. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Moreover, the court’s finding that Crossman might be released from prison in the future was not clearly erroneous because the record reflects that Crossman will be eligible for parole. See United States v. Dann, 652 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth clear error standard).

Crossman further contends that the district court abused its discretion when it declined' to reduce his sentence. The district court properly based its decision on its conclusion that Crossman would pose a serious threat to the ppblic in light of his serious post-sentencing acts of misconduct. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

681 F. App'x 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kory-crossman-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack