NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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