United States v. John Ogburn
This text of 667 F. App'x 683 (United States v. John Ogburn) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
John Meade Ogburn appeals from the district court’s order granting 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.
The district court reduced Ogburn’s sentence from 260 months to 240 months based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Ogburn claims that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. Specifically, he argues that the 240-month mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) is no longer applicable because his prior state felony drug conviction has been reclassified as a misdemeanor under California’s Proposition 47. This claim does not support a further reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826, 831, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010) (aspects of appellant’s sentence not affected by Commission’s amendment to the Guidelines are “outside the scope” of the proceeding authorized by section 3582(c)(2)). The district court therefore did not err by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence. See United States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
667 F. App'x 683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-john-ogburn-ca9-2016.