Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Leroy HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 12-10312
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Leroy HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 640–641

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Leroy HOGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-10312.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Donald Leroy Hogan, Forrest City, AR, pro se.
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Donald Leroy Hogan appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hogan contends that Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines authorized the district court to resentence him under section 3582(c)(2). We review de novo whether the court had jurisdiction to modify Hogan's sentence. See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009).
The record reflects that Hogan's base offense level was calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1), which was not affected by Amendment 591. See U.S.S.G. app. C, amend. 591 (Supp.2003); United States v. McEnry, 659 F.3d 893, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing changes made by Amendment 591). Because Amendment 591 did not lower Hogan's advisory Sentencing Guidelines range, the district court lacked jurisdiction to reduce his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 674.
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Hogan's remaining claims.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.