NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10204
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:06-cr-00479-MCE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARK EDWARD PARKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Mark Edward Parker 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.
Parker contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
address his arguments that he had demonstrated rehabilitation in prison, and that
application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors would support a sentence
at the bottom of the amended Guidelines range, given that the court had imposed a
sentence at the bottom of the original Guidelines range. We disagree. The record
reflects that the district court considered Parker’s arguments and adequately
explained its reasons for declining to reduce his sentence. See Chavez-Meza v.
United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1966-68 (2018).
Parker next contends that his unmodified sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of his post-sentencing rehabilitation and the amended
Guidelines range. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
reduce Parker’s sentence. See United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th
Cir. 2013). The 360-month sentence, which is within the amended Guidelines
range, is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors
and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offense. See
Dunn, 728 F.3d at 1159-60.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-10204
United States v. Mark Parker
Combined Opinion