Case ID: f-appx_654/html/0873-01.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. Fermin Gonzalez ALMANZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-30065
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 18, 2016 
    
    July 20, 2016
    Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Fermín Gonzalez Almanzar, FCI—Fed-eral Correctional Institution—Bennetts-ville, Bennettsville, SC, Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Helena, MT, for DefendanL-Appellant.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Fermin Gonzalez Almanzar appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam), we affirm.

The district court reduced Almanzar’s sentence to 235 months, the bottom of the amended Guidelines range. Almanzar argues that he is eligible for a more substantial reduction because the court should have used a lower drug quantity to calculate the amended range. We disagree. The district court did not have the authority, under section 3582(c)(2), to reconsider the sentencing court’s drug quantity determination. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (proceedings under section 3582(c)(2) are not plenary resen-tencings). Almanzar received the lowest sentence he could have received under section 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A).

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