Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Edgardo HERRERA, a.k.a. Harald Herrera, a.k.a. Harold Herrera, a.k.a. Herald Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse B. Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse Edgar Herrera, a.k.a. Jessie Herrera, 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 871
Docket Number: No. 16-50162
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Edgardo HERRERA, a.k.a. Harald Herrera, a.k.a. Harold Herrera, a.k.a. Herald Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse B. Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse Edgar Herrera, a.k.a. Jessie Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 871–871

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesse Edgardo HERRERA, a.k.a. Harald Herrera, a.k.a. Harold Herrera, a.k.a. Herald Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse B. Herrera, a.k.a. Jesse Edgar Herrera, a.k.a. Jessie Herrera, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50162
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 11, 2017
Filed April 24, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Jesse Edgardo Herrera, 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
Jesse Edgardo Herrera 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.
Herrera's plea agreement provided that, if he received the benefit of then-pending Amendment 782 at sentencing, he waived any right to file a later motion for a sentence reduction under that amendment. Contrary to Herrera's contention, the record reflects that the sentencing court granted him the benefit of Amendment 782 by way of a two-level downward variance. Accordingly, the district court correctly concluded that Herrera had waived the right to pursue a further reduction.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.