United States v. Daniels
This text of 86 F. App'x 296 (United States v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
86 F. App'x 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-daniels-ca9-2004.