United States v. Raymond Cotharn

364 F. App'x 344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 3, 2010
Docket08-30230
StatusUnpublished

This text of 364 F. App'x 344 (United States v. Raymond Cotharn) 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. Raymond Cotharn, 364 F. App'x 344 (9th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Raymond Eugene Cotharn appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cotharn contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for resentenc-ing pursuant to the retroactive amendments to the crack cocaine Sentencing Guidelines. The district court did not err in denying the motion because Cotharn *345 was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).

Moreover, Cotharn’s contention that the district court had authority under United States v. Hicks, 472 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir.2007), to resentence him pursuant to the advisory Guidelines lacks merit. See U.S.S.G § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(A) (2008); see also United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673-74 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

United States v. Aaron Hicks
472 F.3d 1167 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Wesson
583 F.3d 728 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Leniear
574 F.3d 668 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 F. App'x 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-raymond-cotharn-ca9-2010.