United States v. Graciela Rivera

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 22, 2019
• Docket: 19-10029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-10029

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00874-RS-1

v. MEMORANDUM* GRACIELA QUINONEZ RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Graciela Quinonez Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s order

denying 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.

Rivera argues that Amendment 782 to the Guidelines lowered her base

* 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). offense level by two, and therefore authorized the district court to reduce her

sentence. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a

sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Spears, 824 F.3d 908, 913

(9th Cir. 2016). The district court correctly concluded that it did not have that

authority because, even after the Amendment, Rivera’s base offense level

remained 38 given the large drug quantity involved in her offense. See U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (2014). Because Amendment 782 did not lower Rivera’s applicable

guideline range, the district court did not err in denying her motion. See U.S.S.G.

§ 1B1.10(a)(2)(B); Spears, 824 F.3d at 916.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach the government’s alternate

argument.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-10029