Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0409-01.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. Vanessa Maria BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50058
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 14, 2017 
    
    Filed February 21, 2017
    Cynthia Lynne Millsaps, Helen H. Hong, Joseph S. Smith, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Michael Emerson Lasater, Esquire, U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    James Fife, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    
      Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention, the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shah not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 8582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.’’).

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