Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Meade OGBURN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 683
Docket Number: No. 15-30319
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Meade OGBURN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 683–684

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Meade OGBURN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30319
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
FILED August 01, 2016
Bryan Timothy Dake, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Henry Branom, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
John Meade Ogburn appeals from the district court's order granting 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.
The district court reduced Ogburn's sentence from 260 months to 240 months based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Ogburn claims that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. Specifically, he argues that the 240-month mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) is no longer applicable because his prior state felony drug conviction has been reclassified as a misdemeanor under California's Proposition 47. This claim does not support a further reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (aspects of appellant's sentence not affected by Commission's amendment to the Guidelines are "outside the scope" of the proceeding authorized by section 3582(c)(2)). The district court therefore did not err by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.