Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Francis BOOK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-17
Citations: 696 F. App'x 231
Docket Number: No. 15-30032
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Francis BOOK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 231–232

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Francis BOOK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-30032
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted August 9, 2017
Filed August 17, 2017
Joseph E. Thaggard, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Anthony Francis Book, Pro Se
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, 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 Francis Book 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.
Book contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The record makes clear that the disti'ict court imposed Book's sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range lowered by Amendment 782. Because Book's sentence was not "based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission," 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court properly concluded that he was ineligible was a sentence reduction. See United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Moreover, contrary to Book's contention, the district court had no cause to consider his arguments that a reduction was warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010).
Book's motion for the appointment of new counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.