United States v. Jack Vose

624 F. App'x 588

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 15, 2015
• Docket: 15-10120
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jack Martin Vose 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, and we affirm.

Vose contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a district court had authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Paulk, 569 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Vose is not entitled to a sentence reduction because his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Rather, his sentence was based on the statutory mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii). The district court properly denied relief. 1 See Paulk, 569 F.3d at 1095-96.

Vose’s additional claims do not support relief under section 3582(c)(2). See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit a “plenary resen-tencing hearing”).

AFFIRMED.

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

1 . Vose’s contention that he was not subject to the enhanced mandatory minimum because the judgment does not cite 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) is unavailing. The mandatory minimum is set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(l)(B)(vii).