Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Vincent GREEN-BRESSLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-14
Citations: 682 F. App'x 545
Docket Number: No. 16-10263
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Vincent GREEN-BRESSLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 545–546

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Vincent GREEN-BRESSLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-10263
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 14, 2017
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Thomas Scott Hartzell, Attorney, T.S. Hartzell, Attorney at Law, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Jacob Vincent Green-Bressler 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.
Green-Bressler contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court acted within its discretion when it denied Green-Bressler a sentence reduction based on his criminal history and his role in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B); United States v. Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1158-59 (9th Cir. 2013). Further, insofar as Green-Bressler challenges the presentence reports, this claim is not cognizable. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (alleged sentencing errors are "outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by § 3582(c)(2)").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.