Case ID: f-appx_669/html/0424-01.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. Lyle Gerald JOHNS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-10562
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted September 27, 2016 
    
    Filed October 3, 2016
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ.
    Saul M. Huerta, The Huerta Law Office, Tucson, AZ.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. 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

Lyle Gerald Johns appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3682(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Johns contends that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that, prior to ruling on his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, the district court should have corrected this error by recalculating the drug quantities attributable to him. 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). As the district court properly determined, Johns’s Apprendi claim cannot be raised in a 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”). Moreover, Johns is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.

Johns’s motion for release pending appeal is denied as moot.

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