Court Opinion

ID: 4247070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-21 21:00:33.758285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:08.771939
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                             FEB 21 2018
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   16-10458

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
                                                 4:10-cr-00865-DCB-LAB-1
 v.

ISAAC MONGE,                                     MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant-Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                     David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 16, 2018**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge.

      *
             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).
      ***
            The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
      Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a

reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States

Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district

court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v.

Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has

jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant . . . has been

sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has

subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. §

3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was

not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United

States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the

prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the

Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable

Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially

below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was

based on Monge’s conduct herein.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2