United States v. Bruce Jimerson, 479 F. App'x 804 (9th Cir. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Bruce Jimerson, 479 F. App'x 804 (9th Cir. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Bruce Edward JIMERSON, Defendant-Appellant
12-10007.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 20, 2012.
Unpublished opinion
479 F. App'x 804
Gregory A. Brower, U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee., Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Wardlaw, Clifton, Smith.
Unpublished

MEMORANDUM **

[*805] Bruce Edward Jimerson appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered penalties for crack cocaine offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jimerson contends that the district court violated his right to due process by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing before denying a sentence reduction. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Jimerson a sentence reduction based on numerous instances of prison misconduct and public safety concerns. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n. 1(B); United States v. Lightfoot, 626 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2010). The court did not violate Jimerson’s due process rights by declining to conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning his prison misconduct, where Jimerson admitted to the misconduct in his section 3582(c)(2) motion.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid[*805] ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.