Court Opinion

ID: 4231422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-21 22:00:37.273374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:13.867707
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 21 2017
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    16-50370

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 3:11-cr-01926-H

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
RODRIGO COLMENARES Y SANCHEZ-
SOTO,

                Defendant-Appellant.

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

                          Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before:      WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

      Rodrigo Colmenares Y Sanchez-Soto 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.

      Sanchez-Soto 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 had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See

United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). Given the quantity of

drugs involved in Sanchez-Soto’s offense, Amendment 782 did not lower his

sentencing range. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Therefore, a reduction is

not authorized under section 3582(c)(2). See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(2)(B) (2014);

United States v. Mercado-Moreno, 869 F.3d 942, 948-49 (9th Cir. 2017).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         2                                   16-50370