Case ID: f-appx_712/html/0700-01.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. Isaac MONGE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10458
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 16, 2018  San Francisco, California
    Filed February 21, 2018
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Cedric Martin Hopkins, Attorney, The Hopkins Law Office PC, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
      The. Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant .., has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was based on Monge’s conduct herein.

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