Case ID: f-appx_359/html/0742-01.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. Emert Reginald FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-30046.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 4, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 16, 2009.
    Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Stephen R. Sady, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Emert Reginald Flowers appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and affirm.

The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify Flowers’ sentence. Flowers would have been subject to the same sentencing range had Amendment 706 been in place at the time he was sentenced. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2001) (providing that the career offender base offense level applies where it is greater than the applicable base offense level under § 2D1.1). Accordingly, Flowers’ “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as required by § 3582(c)(2).” Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)).

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