United States v. Mathew Winchell

677 F. App'x 453
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 22, 2017
Docket16-30067
StatusUnpublished

This text of 677 F. App'x 453 (United States v. Mathew Winchell) 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. Mathew Winchell, 677 F. App'x 453 (9th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Mathew Douglas Winchell 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.

Winchell contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce his sentence under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Winchell a sentence reduction based on the large quantities of drugs he supplied over a long period of time, his managerial role in the drug distribution enterprise, and the fact that he engaged in illegal activity in the presence of children. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). Furthermore, notwithstanding the court’s failure to specifically address Winchell’s argument concerning his post-offense conduct, the court’s explanation of its denial was sufficient. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

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

Related

United States v. Lightfoot
626 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
United States v. Carty
520 F.3d 984 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 F. App'x 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mathew-winchell-ca9-2017.