Court Opinion

ID: 4108670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-19 22:01:17.088399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:09.054547
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      DEC 19 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 15-10572

                  Plaintiff-Appellee,            D.C. No. 4:08-cr-01370-CKJ

   v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
 ALVARO ZEPEDA-TOSCANO,

                  Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before:       WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

        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-Toscano contends that he is entitled to 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). 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.

§ 1B1.10(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.

                                         2                                    15-10572