- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
U.S. v. CONTRERAS
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alex Contreras appeals from the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Contreras contends that the district court erred when it failed to hold a resentencing hearing governed by United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), when ruling on his § 3582(c)(2) motion. This contention is foreclosed. See Dillon v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___ _ ___, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-92, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010); Fed.R.Crim.P. 43(b)(4).
Contreras also contends that the district court erred by failing to correct a mistake in his original sentence when ruling on the § 3582(c)(2) motion. As a general rule, this court does not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Robinson, 20 F.3d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
Alert