Case ID: f-appx_485/html/0887-01.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 SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30088.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
    
    Filed Oct. 16, 2012.
    Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Richard Edward Cohen, Todd Greenberg, Esquire, Vincent Thomas Lombardi, II, Esquire, Sarah Y. Vogel, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Terrence Kellogg, Counsel, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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 Scott appeals from the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Scott contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction based on the retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines that lowered the penalties for crack cocaine offenses. Scott is not eligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties’ stipulation in a binding plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), and not “on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” as required by section 3582(c)(2). See Freeman v. United States, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2685, 2695-96, 180 L.Ed.2d 519 (2011) (Sotoma-yor, J., concurring). The plea agreement does not call for Scott to be sentenced within a particular Guidelines sentencing range as reflected in the Guidelines sentencing table, nor is any such Guidelines range expressly used in the agreement or evident from the agreement itself. See id. at 2697-98. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to modify Scott’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 676 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir.2012).

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