Court Opinion

ID: 3199298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-29 21:01:02.962101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:13.083331
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      APR 29 2016
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 14-10572

                Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 1:95-cr-00151-DAE

    v.
                                                  MEMORANDUM*
KHANG KIEN TRAN, a.k.a. Charlie, a.k.a.
Thanh, a.k.a. Tran,

                Defendant - Appellant.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                              for the District of Hawaii
                      David A. Ezra, District Judge, Presiding

                              Submitted April 26, 2016**

Before:        McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

         Khang Kien Tran 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.     We review de novo whether a district court

         *
             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).
has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.

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

      Tran contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

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

is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 has not lowered his

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

673-74. To the extent that Tran seeks to challenge the sentencing court’s original

calculation of his Guidelines range, this claim is not cognizable in a section 3582

proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section

3582(c) does not permit a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   14-10572