United States v. Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10498 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:94-cr-00251-GEB v. MEMORANDUM* ALVARO DOMARCO-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alvaro Domarco-Sanchez 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. Domarco-Sanchez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court correctly concluded that Domarco-Sanchez is ineligible for a sentence reduction because Amendment 782 did not lower his applicable sentencing range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673-74. Because the district court lacked authority to reduce Domarco-Sanchez’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). To the extent that Domarco-Sanchez seeks to challenge his sentence as procedurally erroneous and substantively unreasonable, these claims are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit a plenary resentencing proceeding). AFFIRMED. 2 15-10498