Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quintin STEPHEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 403
Docket Number: No. 09-50147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quintin STEPHEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 403–404

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quintin STEPHEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50147.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Rob Bautista Villeza, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael J. Treman, Esquire, Michael J. Treman Attorney at Law, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Quintín Stephen appeals from the district court's order denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a reduced sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Stephen contends that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence in light of Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Because the record reflects that Stephen's original sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission," the district court did not err. See Dillon v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2690-91, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). Stephen's contention that the district court was entitled to treat the corresponding base offense levels and drug quantities in the Guidelines as advisory in light of Booker is foreclosed. See id. at 2690-92.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.