United States v. Genaro Gasca

633 F. App'x 470

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2016
• Docket: 15-10273
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Genaro Gasea 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. 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), and we affirm.

Gasea contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines'. The district court properly concluded that Gasea is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already at the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) '(“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment ... to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”); United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1224 (9th Cir.2014). We reject Gasca’s argument that section 1B1.10(b), as revised by the Sentencing Commission in 2011, violates his right to due process. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 828, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (“[T]he sentence-modification proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) are not constitutionally compelled.”); United States v. Tercero, 734 F.3d 979, 983-84 (9th Cir.2013) (“[T]he [2011] revisions to § 1B1.10 fall squarely within the scope of Congress’s articulated role for the Commission.”).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.