United States v. Daniels

86 F. App'x 296
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 16, 2004·No. No. 03-30149; D.C. No. CR-88-00189-JCC·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM**

Brian Peter Daniels appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We lack jurisdiction to review a district court’s discretionary decision whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Lowe, 136 F.3d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1998).

Daniels’ remaining claims are not cognizable in a § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Stockdale, 129 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.1997) (concluding that re-sentencing following retroactive amendment of Sentencing Guidelines is limited to application of the listed amendment, leaving “all other guideline application decisions unchanged”).

DISMISSED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Daniels, 86 F. App'x 296 (9th Cir. 2004).

86 F. App'x 296 (United States v. Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related