United States v. Anthony Henry

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 24 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50112 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00628-CBM v. MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY HENRY, a.k.a. Chris Gadlin, a.k.a. Rickie Grant, a.k.a. Hippo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 21, 2014** Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Anthony Henry appeals 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm. Henry contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, which amended the drug quantity table in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for offenses involving crack cocaine. However, Henry was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Therefore, his sentence was not based on a Guidelines range that has been lowered, and the district court lacked authority to modify his sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32. Because Henry cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need not consider his remaining claims, including his ex post facto challenge to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and his eligibility for a sentence modification under the second prong of section 3582(c)(2). AFFIRMED. 2 13-50112