Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. BEASLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-10
Citations: 357 F. App'x 860
Docket Number: No. 08-10452
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. BEASLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 860–861

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James L. BEASLEY, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10452.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 7, 2009.
Filed Dec. 10, 2009.
Kirstin M. Ault, Assistant U.S., Barbara Yalliere, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Marc Jonathan Zilversmit, Esquire, Marc J. Zilversmit, Attorney at Law, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Appellant James Beasley challenges the district court's denial of his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582, and the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela.
The district court sentenced Beasley for conspiracy to distribute fifty kilograms or more of cocaine powder, not cocaine base, see U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(c)(l) (Nov. 1, 1987). Beasley was not indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, and the presen-tence report does not mention cocaine base. Therefore, Beasley's sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir.2009) (citation omitted); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court, therefore, properly denied Beasley's motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582.
For this same reason, the district court also properly denied Beasley's petition for a writ of audita querela. See Carrington v. United States, 503 F.3d 888, 890 n. 2 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Because Beasley was not entitled to resen-tencing, the district court was not required to apply Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), to Beasley's sentence. See Wesson, 583 F.3d at 730; see also United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 673 (9th Cir.2002), as amended (holding that Apprendi does not apply retroactively).