Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0872-01.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. Rebekah FOUQUET, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10309
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 18, 2016 
    
    July 20, 2016
    Daniel D. Hollingsworth, Michael Anthony Humphreys, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Kathleen Bliss, Kathleen Bliss Law, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rebekah Fouquet appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fouquet contends that the district court erred in holding that it lacked authority to grant her request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). A district court may only reduce a sentence under section 3582(c)(2) when the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range has been lowered. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(a)(2)(B), cmt. n.1(A); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. As the district court found, Amendment 782 did not lower Fouquet’s Guidelines range. Thus, notwithstanding Fouquet’s policy and equity-based arguments, the district court properly denied her motion. Moreover, contrary to Fouquet’s contention, the rule of lenity does not assist her because section 3582(c)(2). is unambiguous. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381, 387, 100 S.Ct. 2247, 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) (rule of lenity applies only when a statute is ambiguous).

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