United States v. Isaac Monge

712 F. App'x 700
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2018
Docket16-10458
StatusUnpublished

This text of 712 F. App'x 700 (United States v. Isaac Monge) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Isaac Monge, 712 F. App'x 700 (9th Cir. 2018).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Issac Monge appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Monge argues that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782. We review “de novo whether a district court has jurisdiction to modify an otherwise final sentence.” United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 680 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). A district court has jurisdiction to modify an imposed sentence where the “defendant .., has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Monge is not eligible for sentence reduction, because his sentence was not “based on” a subsequently lowered sentencing range. Id.; see also United States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1042 (9th Cir. 2017). Neither the prosecution nor the defense argued for a sentence reduction based on the Guidelines, and the district court did not impose a sentence based on the applicable Guidelines range. Rather, the district court stated (1) it was departing substantially below both the Guidelines and the mandatory minimum; and (2) the sentence was based on Monge’s conduct herein.

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 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

United States v. Geary Waters, Jr.
771 F.3d 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2014)
United States v. Antonio Rodriguez-Soriano
855 F.3d 1040 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
712 F. App'x 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-isaac-monge-ca9-2018.