Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0766-02.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. Gary Patrick CALLAHAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 10-10611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2011.
    Bruce M. Ferg, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Gary Patrick Callahan, Seagoville, TX, pro se.
    
      Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gary Patrick Callahan appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Callahan contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on Amendment 739 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which amended U.S.S.G. § 5H1.11 to allow a sentencing court to consider whether a defendant’s military service is relevant in determining whether a departure is warranted. See U.S.S.G., Appendix C, Amendment 739 (2010). This claim lacks merit because Amendment 739 did not alter Callahan’s applicable sentencing range, therefore his sentence is not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Moreover, a reduction in Callahan’s term of imprisonment would not be “consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.” See Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2).

To the extent that Callahan raises additional claims to support his request for a sentence reduction, those claims are not cognizable in a motion under 3582(c)(2).

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