Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-28
Citations: 667 F. App'x 663
Docket Number: No. 15-10326
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 663–664

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10326
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED July 28, 2016
J. Douglas Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
Daniel Garcia, Pro Se
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, 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
Daniel Garcia appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Garcia contends that the district court erred in holding that it did not have authority to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782. We review de novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2013) overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Notwithstanding the terms of his plea agreement, Garcia was determined at sentencing to be a career offender. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that Garcia's applicable Guidelines range was not lowered by Amendment 782 and, as a result, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See id. at 811-12.
Garcia seeks to avoid this outcome by arguing that Pleasant was wrongly decided. We, however, are bound to follow it. See United States v. Boitano, 796 F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). Furthermore, contrary to Garcia's claim, the application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it does not increase the punishment for his crime over what was imposed when he was sentenced. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.