UNITED STATES v. BLANKENSHIP (2019)

ORDER *

In 2012, Mark Blankenship entered a guilty plea for violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951. He appeals the district court’s grant of a Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence.

1. “Although neither party raised the issue of our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we have a duty to consider it sua sponte.” Symantec Corp. v. Glob. Impact, Inc., 559 F.3d 922, 923 (9th Cir. 2009). Appealing a decision on a Rule 35(b) motion must proceed under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. United States v. Tadio, 663 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2011). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to correct a sentence “imposed in violation of law.” Unless the defendant appeals a question of law, we have no jurisdiction over the appeal. “If the district court has stated the correct legal standard when reducing a sentence under Rule 35(b), we have no appellate jurisdiction to review its decision.” Tadio, 663 F.3d at 1053.

The district court here stated the correct legal standard. See id. at 1045, 1052. Accordingly, “we lack jurisdiction to review the court’s exercise of its discretion in choosing the amount of the sentence reduction awarded.” See id. at 1045.

This appeal is DISMISSED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   The pending motion is denied. (Docket No. 52).