Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Leon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-27
Citations: 464 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 11-10085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Leon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 464
Pages: 577–577

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Leon JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-10085.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 27, 2011.
Laurel J. Montoya, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francine Zepeda, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Anthony Leon Johnson, pro se.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, 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
Anthony Leon Johnson appeals from the denial of his motion to reconsider his 240-month sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Johnson contends that the district court improperly denied his motion to reconsider his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) by failing to consider a sentence outside of the career offender guidelines. The district court did not have jurisdiction to resentence Johnson based on his § 3582(c) motion because Johnson was sentenced pursuant to Guideline § 4B 1.1. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730-32 (9th Cir.2009).
Johnson also contends that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. In Johnson's previous appeal, this court already determined that his 240-month sentence was reasonable.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.