Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres PUERTA, 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 490
Docket Number: No. 08-50573
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres PUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 363
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andres PUERTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-50573.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 26, 2010.
Edward E. Alon, Michael J. Raphael, Esquire, Assistants U.S., Office of U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Gia Kim, Esquire, Deputy Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, 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
Andres Puerta 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.
Puerta 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 Puerta qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Because the district court sentenced Puer-ta 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.