NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10301
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:97-cr-01199-DAE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD BROWN TAUMOEPEAU,
a.k.a. Haumeti, a.k.a. Tiki,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
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
*
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).
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 Taumoepeau’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.1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2010).
Moreover, contrary to Taumoepeau’s contention, the record reflects that the district
court followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817
(2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-10301