Case ID: f-appx_670/html/0454-01.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-Appellant, v. Jesus LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-10406
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 01, 2016
    Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    John Paul Balazs, Attorney, Law Offices of John P. Balazs, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, GRABER, 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

The government appeals from the district court’s order granting Jesus Lopez’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.

The government argues that the district court lacked authority to reduce Lopez’s sentence to 151 months. In light of our recent decision in United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548 (9th Cir. 2016), we agree. In determining the “applicable guidelines range” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10, the district court improperly considered the downward departure that Lopez received at his original sentencing hearing under section 4A1.3(b). See id. at 554-55. The district court should have used the amended base offense level of 33 paired with the pre-departure criminal history category of III, which results in an amended guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. Although Lopez disagrees with the holding in Ornelas, he concedes that it precludes a reduction of his sentence below 168 months. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A); Ornelas, 825 F.3d at 555.

This court has already rejected Lopez’s argument that this application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680-81 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Ornelas, 825 F.3d at 555 n.9 (noting rejection). Accordingly, we vacate and remand for re-sentencing consistent with our decision in Ornelas.

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