Case ID: f-appx_697/html/0894-01.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. Christopher Lee OSTERLOTH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-30267
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
    Paulette Lynn Stewart, Assistant U.S., USHE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Lee Osterloth, Atlanta, GA, pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Christopher Lee Osterloth 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.

Osterloth contends that he is entitled to 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 3582(c)(2), See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the district court imposed Osterloth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Osterloth’s sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” he is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Os-terloth’s contention, the record reflects that the district court gave due consideration to his motion, consulted the relevant documents, and explained its reasons for denying the motion.

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