Court Opinion

ID: 4276242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-05-17 20:00:33.121635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:54.835796
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 17 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    17-10431

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:91-cr-00446-FRZ

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
FELIPE DE JESUS CORONA-VERBERA,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                    Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before:      SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Felipe de Jesus Corona-Verbera 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.

      Corona-Verbera contends that he is eligible for 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). Corona-Verbera was

convicted of offenses involving approximately 924 kilograms of cocaine. Even

after Amendment 782, the base offense level for that drug amount is 38. See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Corona-

Verbera’s applicable guideline range, the district court correctly concluded that he

is ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Contrary to Corona-Verbera’s

contention, once the district court determined his ineligibility, it was not required

to consider the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before denying his

section 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010)

(the court first must determine that a sentence reduction under section 3582 is

consistent with section 1B1.10 before it may consider whether the authorized

reduction is warranted under the section 3553(a) factors).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    17-10431