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