Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher NIU, 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 580
Docket Number: No. 16-10305
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher NIU, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher NIU, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10305
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Thomas C. Muehleck, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the US Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Christopher Niu, 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). Appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Christopher Niu 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.
Niu contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Niu's contention, the district court properly followed the procedure set forth in Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). In so doing, the district court correctly determined that Niu is ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) ("[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range."). Niu's contentions that the government breached the plea agreement and that the district court failed to explain the sentence adequately are outside the scope of this proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831,130 S.Ct. 2683.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.