Case ID: f-appx_553/html/0664-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony HENRY, a.k.a. Chris Gadlin, a.k.a. Rickie Grant, a.k.a. Hippo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-50112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
    
    Jan. 24, 2014.
    Lisa Eve Feldman, Assistant U.S., Curtis A. Kin, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Carlton Gunn, Esquire, Kaye McLane Bednarski & Litt, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anthony Henry appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

Henry contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. However, Henry was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked authority to modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32.

Because Henry cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need not consider his remaining claims, including his ex post facto challenge to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and his eligibility for a sentence modification under the second prong of section 3582(c)(2).

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