NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-10236
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00248-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD MENDOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Richard Mendoza 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.
Mendoza contends that the district court erred by failing to calculate and
*
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).
consider his amended Guidelines range. The record reflects that the district court
considered the amended Guidelines ranges proposed by Mendoza and assumed that
Mendoza was eligible for a reduction. The court then considered the pertinent 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and determined that a reduction was not warranted under
those factors. Contrary to Mendoza’s contentions, the court correctly applied the
two-step approach set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27
(2010).
Mendoza further contends that the district court abused its discretion by
relying on clearly erroneous facts and placing undue weight on his post-sentencing
conduct in denying the reduction. Considering Mendoza’s prison disciplinary
record and underlying conviction, the court’s finding that Mendoza posed a safety
risk to the public was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Mercado-
Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, the court acted within its
discretion when it relied on Mendoza’s post-sentencing conduct to deny his
motion. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(ii); United States v. Lightfoot, 626
F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010). In light of the totality of the circumstances, the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mendoza’s motion. See
United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-10236