Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0862-01.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. Jose Luis MANZO, a.k.a. Jose Manzo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30151
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jared Courtland Kimball, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jose Luis Manzo, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Luis Manzo appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Í8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Manzo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3682(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Man-zo’s contention, the district court did not conclude that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Rather, the district court correctly held that it lacked the authority to reduce Manzo’s sentence because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.

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