Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Manuel FONTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-24
Citations: 675 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 16-30027
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Manuel FONTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus Manuel FONTES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-30027
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 24, 2017
Christian S. Nafzger, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jesus Manuel Fontes, Pro Se.
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argupent. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Manuel Fontes appeals pro se from the district court's order granting in part 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.
Fontes contends that the district court should have further reduced his sentence. Contrary to Fontes's view, the district court properly calculated his amended guideline range as 168 to 210 months with out considering the one-level variance that the court granted at his original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 552 (9th Cir. 2016). Because the district court reduced Fontes's sentence to 168-months, he' is ineligible for any further sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) ("[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.