Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0870-01.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. Lewis Lynn MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30169
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Tim Tatarka, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Lewis Lynn Mitchell, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, 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). Mitchell’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lewis Lynn Mitchell 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, and we affirm.

Mitchell contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Mitchell was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a Guidelines range that was lowered by Amendment 782 and he is ineligible for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the district court had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

Mitchell’s contention that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.