Court Opinion

ID: 2641943
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-12 21:16:23.112855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:03.890663
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                NOV 12 2013

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

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50370

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 09-217-GHK

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
KEVIN DOUCETTE,

              Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    George H. King, District Judge, Presiding

                      Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013
                              Pasadena, California

Before: REINHARDT, KLEINFELD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

       Kevin Doucette appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court may modify an

        *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

                                          1
otherwise final sentence under § 3582. United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730

(9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

      Section 3582(c)(2) allows modification of a term of imprisonment when: (1)

the sentence is based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by

the Sentencing Commission; and (2) such reduction is consistent with applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Id. Doucette argues that

he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which made

permanent earlier modifications to the drug quantity table in United States

Sentencing Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine.

But Doucette was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guideline range that has been lowered,

and was ineligible for modification under § 3582. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);

Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731–32.

      Because Doucette cannot satisfy the first requirement for a sentence

modification under § 3582(c)(2), we need not consider Doucette’s ex post facto

challenge to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10—the Guideline that sets out the policy statements

relevant to the second requirement for a sentence modification under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.

                                         2