
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alex CONTRERAS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-30213.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 7, 2010.
    Stephan Alexander Collins, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Alex Contreras, Sheridan, OR, Fred Richard Curtner, Iii, Esquire, Federal Public Defender, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     