Court Opinion

ID: 4313376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-09-18 21:00:24.059461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:01:53.696998
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 18 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    18-10009

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos
Guerro,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                   Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted September 12, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Socorro Loya-Chavez 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, and we affirm.

      Loya-Chavez 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 has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Loya-Chavez was

sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not

“based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782, and he is ineligible

for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The

Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result.

Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his

sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing

rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district

court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                  18-10009