Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro GASCA, a.k.a. David Garcia, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-21
Citations: 633 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 15-10273
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro GASCA, a.k.a. David Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Genaro GASCA, a.k.a. David Garcia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2016.
Filed March 21, 2016.
Barbara Valliere, J. Douglas Wilson, DOJ-USAO, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Genaro Gasca, Post, TX, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, 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
Genaro Gasea 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v, Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
Gasea contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines'. The district court properly concluded that Gasea is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already at the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) '("[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment . to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range."); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir.2014). We reject Gasca's argument that section 1B1.10(b), as revised by the Sentencing Commission in 2011, violates his right to due process. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) ("[T]he sentence-modification proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) are not constitutionally compelled."); United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 983-84 (9th Cir.2013) ("[T]he [2011] revisions to § 1B1.10 fall squarely within the scope of Congress's articulated role for the Commission.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.