United States v. Elaine Beston

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30218

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:08-cr-00007-SEH

v. MEMORANDUM* ELAINE BESTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Elaine Beston appeals from the district court’s order granting in part her

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). Beston’s request for oral argument is denied. The district court reduced Beston’s sentence from 192 to 180 months.

Beston contends that she is entitled to a further sentence reduction. The record

reflects, however, that Beston was ineligible for a reduction because her sentence

was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the

Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Rodriguez-

Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017). Nevertheless, we will not

enlarge Beston’s sentence because “a defendant who appeals but faces no cross-

appeal can proceed anticipating that the appellate court will not enlarge [her]

sentence.” Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237, 252 (2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 15-30218