Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Fitzgerald HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 893
Docket Number: No. 08-10367
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Fitzgerald HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 893–894

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Fitzgerald HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-10367.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Randall M. Howe, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anders V. Rosenquist, Jr., Esquire, Ro-senquist & Associates, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
John Fitzgerald Harris appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to re duce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harris contends the district court erred by denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion because his sentence was based on a range that has been lowered by Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court lacked authority to reduce Harris' below-guidelines sentence because the record demonstrates that Harris' sentence was not based on the Guidelines. See United States v. Bride, 581 F.3d 888, 891 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.