Court Opinion

ID: 4146841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-21 21:01:09.861598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:27.220624
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               FEB 21 2017

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-50058

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00775-JLS

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

VANESSA MARIA BISHOP,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                   Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2017**

Before:      GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her

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.

      *
             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).
      Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention,

the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without

considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original

sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d
548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is

below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion

for a sentence reduction. 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.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    16-50058