Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHANG KIEN TRAN, a.k.a. Charlie, a.k.a. Thanh, a.k.a. Tran, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-29
Citations: 649 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 14-10572
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHANG KIEN TRAN, a.k.a. Charlie, a.k.a. Thanh, a.k.a. Tran, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 649
Pages: 467–467

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KHANG KIEN TRAN, a.k.a. Charlie, a.k.a. Thanh, a.k.a. Tran, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 26, 2016.
Filed April 29, 2016.
Florence T. Nakakuni, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Tony Ray Roberts, Esquire, Assistant U.S., DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Khang Kien Tran, Coleman, FL, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Khang Kien Tran 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
Tran contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Tran is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 has not lowered his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. To the extent that Tran seeks to challenge the sentencing court's original calculation of his Guidelines range, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582 proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit a "plenary resentencing proceeding").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.