Court Opinion

ID: 4230755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-20 21:00:44.825415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:58.476949
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 20 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 17-30003

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00278-RAJ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JAMES TEMPLETON,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                   Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      James Templeton 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.

      Templeton contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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). Contrary to

Templeton’s contention, section 3582(c)(2) did not authorize the district court to

apply a two-level reduction for safety valve because such a reduction was not

applied at Templeton’s original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B.10(b)(1) (when

determining a defendant’s amended guideline range, the court “shall substitute

only the [amended provisions] for the corresponding guideline provisions that were

applied when the defendant was sentenced and shall leave all other guideline

application decisions unaffected”); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 827

(2010). This is true even if the district court erred by failing to apply a safety valve

reduction at the original sentencing. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831. Because

Templeton’s 240-month sentence is below his amended guideline range of 262 to

327 months, he is ineligible for a reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (the

district court may not reduce a defendant’s sentence “to a term that is less than the

minimum of the amended guideline range”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    17-30003