Court Opinion

ID: 3162790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-15 21:01:16.668653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:42.953947
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 15 2015

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

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10120

               Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00734-CKJ

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
JACK MARTIN VOSE,

               Defendant - Appellant.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted December 9, 2015**

Before:        WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

      Jack Martin Vose 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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Vose contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under 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.

Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Vose is not entitled to a

sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that

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

§ 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). The district court properly denied relief.1 See

Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

      Vose’s additional claims do not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See

Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit

a “plenary resentencing hearing”).

      AFFIRMED.

      1
      Vose’s contention that he was not subject to the enhanced mandatory
minimum because the judgment does not cite 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) is unavailing. The
mandatory minimum is set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii).

                                         2                                   15-10120