Court Opinion

ID: 4162852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-04-24 21:05:55.347237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:49.773795
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              APR 24 2017

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

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 16-50133

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:05-cr-01972-H

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
HERMAN WILLIAM RAEL,

              Defendant-Appellant.

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

                            Submitted April 11, 2017**

Before:      GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Herman William Rael 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

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Rael contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment

782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court has

authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v.

Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Rael was sentenced as a career

offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not “based on” a

Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2);

Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. Further, insofar as Rael contends that the district court

erred when it determined that he was a career offender, this claim is not cognizable

in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 831

(2010) (alleged sentencing errors are “outside the scope of the proceeding

authorized by § 3582(c)(2)”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   16-50133