United States v. Elias Barrera-Medina

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 19 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10173

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00213-MCE

v.
MEMORANDUM*
ELIAS MIGUEL BARRERA-MEDINA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2016**

Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Elias Miguel Barrera-Medina 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 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).
 Barrera-Medina 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. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009). The district court

correctly concluded that Barrera-Medina 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.

Barrera-Medina’s challenges to the sentencing court’s drug quantity

calculations are not cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v.

United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826 (2010) (section 3582(c)(2) authorizes “only a

limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence and not a plenary resentencing

proceeding”).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-10173