FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 26 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50434
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00599-GPS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES DEMMONS, a.k.a. James
Anderson, a.k.a. Craig, A.k.a. James
Demmond, a.k.a. Rupert Demmons, a.k.a.
James Hughes, a.k.a. James David Hughes,
a.k.a. James Paul Rubert, a.k.a. James
David Summers, a.k.a. Van Demmons,
a.k.a. Van Dillion, a.k.a. James Van
Huges, a.k.a. Van Wright, a.k.a. Craig
Wright, a.k.a. James Wright,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Audrey B. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
James Demmons 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
modify a sentence under section 3582, see United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728,
730 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Demmons contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010 and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines.
However, as Demmons concedes, he 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 reduce his
sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731-32. Because
Demmons cannot satisfy the first prong of section 3582(c)(2), we need not
consider his arguments related to his eligibility for a sentence modification under
the second prong of section 3582(c)(2), including the application of U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10.
Demmons also contends that the denial of a sentence modification based on
the Fair Sentencing Act violated his right to equal protection of the law. As he
concedes, this contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Baptist, 646 F.3d
1225, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-50434