Court Opinion

ID: 2653829
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-02-19 21:26:35.124692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:29.798277
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                FEB 18 2014

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10219

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00203-CW-34

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JAMES EDWARD BAGBY,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                   Claudia Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 18, 2013**

Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.

       James Edward Bagby appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We review de novo

the issue of whether a district court has the authority to reduce a sentence under 18

          *
             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).
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2013).

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Bagby contends that he is eligible for a reduction of his sentence under 18

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because his sentence was based on U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, which

subsequently was amended by the Sentencing Commission. However, in

accordance with the binding plea agreement, the court did not rely on U.S.S.G. §

2D1.1 to calculate the Guidelines range, but instead relied on the Career Offender

guideline, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, Bagby’s sentence was not based on a

sentencing range that subsequently has been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission. See United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730-32 (9th Cir. 2009).

In addition, a reduction would not be consistent with the Sentencing Commission’s

policy statements because the Guidelines range calculated prior to any variance has

not been lowered as a result of an amendment. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A);

Pleasant, 704 F.3d at 811-12. Thus, Bagby did not satisfy the criteria required to

be eligible for a sentence reduction and the district court did not err when it denied

Bagby’s motion. See Wesson, 583 F.3d at 730-32.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2