United States v. William Strong

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10100

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00078-JAM

v.

WILLIAM STRONG, a.k.a. Wee Wee MEMORANDUM* Strong, a.k.a. William Henry Strong, a.k.a. Wee Wee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

William Strong appeals from the district court’s denial of his amended

motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) for a sentence reduction. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

* 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). Strong contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Guidelines because recent California state court orders,

which reclassified his previous drug felony convictions as misdemeanors, have

affected his designation as a career offender. We review de novo whether the

district court had authority to reduce a defendant’s sentence under section 3582.

See United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009).

Strong’s challenge to his career offender designation is not cognizable under

section 3582(c)(2), which authorizes sentencing reductions solely where the

defendant’s Guidelines range has been lowered by an amendment to the

Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a)(1), (b)(1); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.

817, 831 (2010). The district court properly concluded that Strong was ineligible

for a reduction because Amendment 782 did not affect his status as a career

offender, and therefore did not lower his Guidelines range. See United States v.

Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 731 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 18-10100