Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VALLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 681 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 16-10156
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VALLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 681
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VALLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10156
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 14, 2017
Jason Hitt, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Manuel Valle 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.
Valle contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Valle is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicar ble sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Moreover, because the court lacked authority to reduce Valle's sentence, it had no reason to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.