Court Opinion

ID: 3029169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-13 22:42:22.284546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:45.778462
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               NOV 16 2009

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

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 09-30046

             Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 3:01-CR-00271-BR-1

       v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
EMERT REGINALD FLOWERS,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Oregon
                    Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 4, 2009
                               Portland, Oregon

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Emert Reginald Flowers appeals from the district court’s order denying his

motion to reduce sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668,

672 (9th Cir. 2009), and affirm.

        *
        This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
      The district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to modify Flowers’ sentence. Flowers would have been

subject to the same sentencing range had Amendment 706 been in place at the time

he was sentenced. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 (2001) (providing that the career offender

base offense level applies where it is greater than the applicable base offense level

under § 2D1.1). Accordingly, Flowers’ “sentence is not ‘based on a sentencing

range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission,’ as

required by § 3582(c)(2).” Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673 (quoting 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2)).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2