Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAI CHING SAELEE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-11
Citations: 383 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 08-30331
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAI CHING SAELEE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 656–656

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NAI CHING SAELEE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30331.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 11, 2010.
Kevin Feldis, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Allison Elizabeth Mendel, Mendel & Associates, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Nai Ching Saelee appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of his sentence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Saelee contends that Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, retroactively amending U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 with respect to offenses involving crack cocaine, authorizes the district court to resentence him. The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to section 3582(c)(2) to modify Saelee's sentence, as his sentence was premised upon the career offender provision of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, Saelee's sentence is not based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 673 (9th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.