Case ID: f-appx_681/html/0652-01.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. Manuel VALLE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10156
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 14, 2017
    Jason Hitt, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Valle appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

Valle contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Valle is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicar ble sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Moreover, because the court lacked authority to reduce Valle’s sentence, it had no reason to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).

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