Court Opinion

ID: 2650910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-01-25 01:02:30.411797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:06.070462
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JAN 24 2014

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-50112

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00628-CBM

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY HENRY, a.k.a. Chris Gadlin,
a.k.a. Rickie Grant, a.k.a. Hippo,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Central District of California
                   Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 21, 2014**

Before:        CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

       Anthony Henry 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,

730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

      Henry contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under

Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for

offenses involving crack cocaine. However, Henry was sentenced as a career

offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a

Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked authority to

modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32.

      Because Henry cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need

not consider his remaining claims, including his ex post facto challenge to

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and his eligibility for a sentence modification under the second

prong of section 3582(c)(2).

     AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   13-50112