Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro ZEPEDA-TOSCANO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 588
Docket Number: No. 15-10572
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro ZEPEDA-TOSCANO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alvaro ZEPEDA-TOSCANO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-10572
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTU—Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Alvaro Zepeda-Toscano, Pro Se
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, 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
Alvaro Zepeda-Toscano appeals pro se from the district court's orders 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.
Zepeda-Tóscano 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). Assuming without deciding that Zepeda-Toscano's Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement does not preclude him from a sentence reduction under United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), he is nonetheless ineligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 because his sentence is already below the minimum of the amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G. § lB1.10(b)(2)(A) ("[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant's term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range."). Accordingly, the district court did not err by denying Zepeda-Toscano's motion.
We reject Zepeda-Toscano's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because the Federal Public Defender did not represent him in these proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.