Case ID: f-appx_633/html/0468-01.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. Joe DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10293.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 21, 2016.
    Thomas C. Muehleck, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee. '
    Joe Daniels, Lexington, KY, pro se.
    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

Joe Daniels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying 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 a 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.

Daniels contends that the district court erred by relying on the policy statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to deny his request for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. This claim fails. Contrary to Daniels’s contention, the limitations placed on the district court’s sentencing discretion by section 1B1.10 do not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1225-26 (9th Cir.2014). Moreover, the district court properly concluded that Daniels is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not modify his applicable Guideline range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.

Daniels’s motion for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.

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