United States v. Richard Taumoepeau

689 F. App'x 569
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided April 24, 2017·No. 16-10301·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Brown Taumoepeau appeals from the district court’s order granting in part 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.

Taumoepeau contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying him a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. As an initial matter, we reject the government’s argument that this appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Turning to the merits, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion when, after considering the nature of Tau-moepeau’s offense and his post-sentencing rehabilitation, it reduced Taumoepeau’s sentence from 480 to 345 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, contrary to Tau-moepeau’s contention, the record reflects that the district court followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (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

United States v. Richard Taumoepeau, 689 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2017).

689 F. App'x 569 (United States v. Richard Taumoepeau) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dillon v. United States
560 U.S. 817 (Supreme Court, 2010)
United States v. Lightfoot
626 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)