Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Martin VOSE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-15
Citations: 624 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 15-10120
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Martin VOSE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 588–588

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Martin VOSE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10120.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
Angela Walker Woolridge, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jack Martin Vose, pro se.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Jack Martin Vose 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.
Vose 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. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Vose is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii). The district court properly denied relief. See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.
Vose's additional claims do not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). 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 resen-tencing hearing").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Vose's contention that he was not subject to the enhanced mandatory minimum because the judgment does not cite 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) is unavailing. The mandatory minimum is set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii).