Case ID: f-appx_86/html/0296-01.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. Brian Peter DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-30149.
    D.C. No. CR-88-00189-JCC.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 16, 2004.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington; John C. Coughenour, Chief Judge, Presiding.
    Mark N. Bartlett, USSE-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Brian Peter Daniels, pro se, FCITAFederal Correctional Institution (Taft), for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Peter Daniels appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998).

Daniels’ remaining claims are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that re-sentencing following retroactive amendment of Sentencing Guidelines is limited to application of the listed amendment, leaving “all other guideline application decisions unchanged”).

DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.