Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drury HILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 738
Docket Number: No. 15-30349
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drury HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 738–739

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drury HILL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30349
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Brendan Patrick McCarthy, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael Donahoe, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Helena), Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, 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
Drury Hill appeals 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, and we affirm.
Hill contends that the district court erred by using the undisputed guideline range calculated at sentencing, rather than the lower range calculated in his plea agreement, to determine his applicable guideline range. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we conclude that the district court properly denied Hill relief.. For purposes of a motion for a sentence reduction, the applicable guideline range is the pre-departure, pre-variance range calculated by the court at sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.l(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 554-55 (9th Cir. 2016) (applicable guideline range does not include criminal history category departure). This is true even when a binding plea agreement calculates a lower range to cover the stipulated sentence. See United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 811-12 (9th Cir. 2013) (applicable guideline range was career offender range notwithstanding lower range calculated in the plea agreement), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Here, the record reflects that the court correctly calculated an undisputed guideline range of 262 to 327 months, but agreed to vary downward to impose the stipulated sentence, which was in the middle of the lower range calculated in the plea agreement. Under these circumstances, the court correctly determined that the applicable guideline range was 262 to 327 months, and the amended guideline range was 210 to 262 months. Because Hill received a 210-month sentence for his drug offense, he is ineligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) (a sentence may not be reduced below the minimum of the amended guideline range).
Hill's contention that he is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea is outside the scope of this proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-26, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.