NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUL 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10326
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 5:10-cr-00209-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DANIEL GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for 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).
Garcia contends that the district court erred in holding that it did not have
authority to reduce his sentence under Guidelines Amendment 782. We review de
novo whether a defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction. See United States v.
Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir. 2013) overruled on other grounds by United
States v. Davis, __F.3d__ (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
Notwithstanding the terms of his plea agreement, Garcia was determined at
sentencing to be a career offender. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that
Garcia’s applicable Guidelines range was not lowered by Amendment 782 and, as
a result, he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See id. at 811-12.
Garcia seeks to avoid this outcome by arguing that Pleasant was wrongly
decided. We, however, are bound to follow it. See United States v. Boitano, 796
F.3d 1160, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015). Furthermore, contrary to Garcia’s claim, the
application of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 to his case does not violate the Ex Post Facto
Clause because it does not increase the punishment for his crime over what was
imposed when he was sentenced. See United States v. Waters, 771 F.3d 679, 681
(9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-10326