Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-02
Citations: 615 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 14-10519
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 615
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Oscar Rafael SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10519.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
Filed Sept. 2, 2015.
Kathleen Anne Servatius, Assistant U.S., USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Oscar Rafael Serrano, Pollock, LA, pro se.
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, 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
Oscar Rafael Serrano appeals pro se from the district court's denying his mo tion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Serrano contends that the district court erred by denying him a sentence reduction under Guidelines Amendment 782. We review de novo whether an amendment is applicable to a defendant's sentence. See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). The district court correctly determined that if Amendment 782 had been in effect when Serrano was originally sentenced, it would not have affected his Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G § lB1.10(b)(l). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Serrano's Guidelines range, the district court lacked authority to modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam).
Serrano next contends that the district court erred because it failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors in evaluating his motion. Because the district court correctly determined that a reduction was not authorized, it properly declined to consider the section 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.