FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10120
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:09-cr-00734-CKJ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JACK MARTIN VOSE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
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.
*
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).
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)(1)(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 (2010) (section 3582(c) does not permit
a “plenary resentencing hearing”).
AFFIRMED.
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)(1)(B)(vii).
2 15-10120