Case ID: f-appx_481/html/0351-01.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. Kelvin Renard JOHNSON, a.k.a. Boo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2012.
    Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Kelvin Renard Johnson, Oakdale, LA, pro se.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kelvin Renard Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to modify his term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johnson contends that he was eligible for a sentence reduction based on the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that reduced the base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 applicable to crack cocaine offenses. The district court lacked jurisdiction to modify Johnson’s sentence because the sentence, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, was based on the career offender provision, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, not section 2D1.1. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).

Johnson nonetheless argues that his decision to enter into the plea agreement was influenced by the sentencing framework that was later changed by the crack cocaine amendments. Even assuming the truth of this contention, section 3582(c) does not afford a basis for relief. See Wesson, 583 F.3d at 732 (“The only question that matters in determining the applicability of [the crack cocaine amendments] is whether [the] sentence is ‘based on’ § 2D1.1.”).

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