��ʮ���²����

A Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion in a sentencing reduction when the district court properly considers a defendant’s relative culpability, capacity for abiding by the law, and threat to society along with cooperation with authorities.

Tadio pled guilty to witness intimidation. After his arrest, Tadio assisted the government in prosecuting others involved in his criminal organization. The government moved to reduce Tadio’s sentence. After sentencing, Tadio further cooperated with authorities despite he threats received while in custody. As a reward for his continued cooperation, the government moved to have Tadio’s sentence reduced by another 24 months. Tadio proposed a reduction of 48 months. The district court considered Tadio’s previous criminal history when determining his second sentence reduction. Tadio objected, claiming his cooperation with the authorities was the only factor to be considered in a sentence reduction. Tadio’s sentence was reduced by 24 months, resulting in a 63-month sentence. Tadio filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, and he appealed. The Ninth Circuit held that a court may use § 3553(a) factors, such as a defendant’s relative culpability, capacity for abiding by the law, and threat to society when considering a sentence reduction. The Court found that a sentencing court should consider many factors when making an “individualized assessment” of each defendant. The Court held that when a sentencing court properly applies the sentencing rules, the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review its exercise of discretion in sentencing reductions. AFFIRMED in part DISMISSED in part.