NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10293
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00104-HG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOE DANIELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Joe Daniels 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. We review de novo whether a district court has authority
to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574
*
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).
F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Daniels contends that the district court erred by relying on the policy
statements in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to deny his request for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. This claim fails. Contrary to
Daniels’s contention, the limitations placed on the district court’s sentencing
discretion by section 1B1.10 do not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See
United States v. Davis, 739 F.3d 1222, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, the
district court properly concluded that Daniels is ineligible for a sentence reduction
because Amendment 782 did not modify his applicable Guideline range. See 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74.
Daniels’s motion for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10293