Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis MANZO, a.k.a. Jose Manzo, 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 862
Docket Number: No. 16-30151
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis MANZO, a.k.a. Jose Manzo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 862–862

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Luis MANZO, a.k.a. Jose Manzo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30151
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Russell E. Smoot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Joseph Hilary Harrington, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jared Courtland Kimball, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USSP — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jose Luis Manzo, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Manzo appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Í8 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Manzo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for 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 3682(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Contrary to Man-zo's contention, the district court did not conclude that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence was based on the parties' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. Rather, the district court correctly held that it lacked the authority to reduce Manzo's sentence because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.