Court Opinion

ID: 4152359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-14 20:00:54.689768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:33.838375
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              MAR 14 2017

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-10156

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00213-MCE

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MANUEL VALLE,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                 Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before:      LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Manuel Valle appeals pro se 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v.

Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), we affirm.

      *
             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).
      Valle contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Valle

is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his

applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at

673-74. Moreover, because the court lacked authority to reduce Valle’s sentence,

it had no reason to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon

v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   16-10156