United States v. Frank Reyes
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank REYES, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Dana M. Sabraw (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Joseph J. Farris (author), Alfred T. Goodwin, Ferdinand F. Fernandez
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50049 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:06-cr-01242-DMS v. MEMORANDUM*
FRANK REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Frank Reyes 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 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). Reyes 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Reyes is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Reyes’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010). Finally, Reyes is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding the drug quantities attributable to him because that issue is not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 826 (section 3582(c)(2) does not authorize a “plenary resentencing proceeding”).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50049