Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph D. CLEMENTS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-26
Citations: 363 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 09-10153
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph D. CLEMENTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph D. CLEMENTS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10153.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Peter Stuart Levitt, Esquire, Assistant U.S., USLV-Office of The U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rene Valladares, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Joseph D. Clements appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on the retroactive application of Amendment 706 to the Sentence Guidelines provisions governing crack cocaine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Clements contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706 because his sentence was based, in part, on a sentencing range calculated under the Drug Quantity Table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1. This contention fails because Clements qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because the district court sentenced Clements based on a sentencing range calculated under § 4B1.1, he is not eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 706. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.