Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 679
Docket Number: No. 15-10498
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 679–680

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10498
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 1, 2016
Jason Hitt, USSAC—Office of the US Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez, LaSalle Detention Facility, Jena, LA, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez 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.
Domarco-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to 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 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lerdear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Domarco-Sanchez is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Lerdear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Domarco-Sanchez's sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
To the extent that Domarco-Sanchez seeks to challenge his sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.