Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. DEWEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-24
Citations: 689 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 16-30113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. DEWEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 861–861

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John P. DEWEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30113
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT — Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
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). Dewey’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John P, Dewey appeals 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.
Dewey contends that the district court erred by denying his motion without first appointing counsel to represent him. This claim fails because Dewey had no constitutional right to counsel when bringing his section 3582 motion. See United States v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, because Dewey was sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, the district court correctly determined that he is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.