Case ID: f-appx_615/html/0467-01.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. Oscar Rafael SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10519.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
    Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Oscar Rafael Serrano, Pollock, LA, pro se.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Rafael Serrano appeals pro se from the district court’s denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Serrano contends that the district court erred by denying him a sentence reduction under Guidelines Amendment 782. We review de novo whether an amendment is applicable to a defendant’s sentence. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that if Amendment 782 had been in effect when Serrano was originally sentenced, it would not have affected his Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G § lB1.10(b)(l). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Serrano’s Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam).

Serrano next contends that the district court erred because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in evaluating his motion. Because the district court correctly determined that a reduction was not authorized, it properly declined to consider the section 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

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