Case ID: f-appx_689/html/0871-01.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. Jesse Edgardo HERRERA, a.k.a. Harald Herrera, a.k.a. Harold Herrera, a.k.a. Herald Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse B. Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse Edgar Herrera, a.k.a. Jessie Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-50162
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 11, 2017 
    
    Filed April 24, 2017
    Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Jesse Edgardo Herrera, Pro Se
    Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesse Edgardo Herrera 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, and we affirm.

Herrera’s plea agreement provided that, if he received the benefit of then-pending Amendment 782 at sentencing, he waived any right to file a later motion for a sentence reduction under that amendment. Contrary to Herrera’s contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court granted him the benefit of Amendment 782 by way of a two-level downward variance. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Herrera had waived the right to pursue a further reduction.

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