Case ID: f-appx_642/html/0788-01.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. David DERRYBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Tara Elliott, USMI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Derryberry appeals from the district court’s order granting 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 the district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.

The district court reduced Derryberry’s sentence from 96 months to 92 months based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Derryberry contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. Because 92 months was the minimum of Derryberry’s amended guideline range, the district court was precluded from reducing the sentence further. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (except in a case of a government motion for a departure based on substantial assistance, a district court “shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment ... to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range”); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir.2014). Contrary to Derryberry’s contention, the application of section lB1.10(b)(2)(A) to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it did not “increase the punishment for his. crime over what was imposed when he was sentenced.” See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir.2014).

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