FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-30283
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:03-cr-00370-GMK
District of Oregon,
v. Portland
MARSHALL CHARLES RICHMOND,
ORDER
Defendant - Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on October 2, 2009 is withdrawn, and
the mandate is recalled.
A new memorandum disposition has been filed concurrently with this order.
No further filings shall be accepted, and the mandate shall be issued
forthwith.
D AT /Research
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 08-30283
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:03-cr-00370-GMK
v.
MEMORANDUM *
MARSHALL CHARLES RICHMOND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2009**
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Marshall Charles Richmond appeals from the district court's order granting
in part his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. y 3582 based on the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
D AT /Research
retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for
cracµ cocaine offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. y 1291, and we
affirm.
Richmond contends that the district court erred by not affording him
allocution prior to its resentencing determination. This contention lacµs merit. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b); see also Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th
Cir. 1992). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct
an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir.
2003).
Richmond further contends that the court abused its discretion in not
imposing a lower sentence, and that the court failed to sufficiently explain its
reasoning. These arguments are belied by the record. See United States v. Colson,
573 F.3d 915, 916 (9th Cir. 2009) (order).
We decline to reach Richmond's additional conclusory contentions because
they are beyond the scope of our review of a y 3582 proceeding. See United States
v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir. 2009).
Richmond's motion to striµe the correspondence received on June 23, 2009,
is granted.
AFFIRMED.
D AT/Research 2 08-30283