United States v. Marshall Richmond
Opinion
Opinion
ORDER
The memorandum disposition filed on October 2, 2009 is withdrawn, and the mandate is recalled.
A new memorandum disposition has been filed concurrently with this order.
No further filings shall be accepted, and the mandate shall be issued forthwith.
MEMORANDUM
Marshall Charles Richmond appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 based on the retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduces penalties for crack cocaine offenses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Richmond contends that the district court erred by not affording him allocution prior to its resentencing determination. This contention lacks merit. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 43(b); see also Boardman v. Estelle, 957 F.2d 1523, 1530 (9th Cir.1992). The district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct an eviden-tiary hearing. See United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir.2003).
Richmond further contends that the court abused its discretion in not imposing a lower sentence, and that the court failed to sufficiently explain its reasoning. These arguments are belied by the…