United States v. Vanessa Bishop

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50058 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00775-JLS v. MEMORANDUM* VANESSA MARIA BISHOP, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Vanessa Maria Bishop appeals from the district court’s order denying her 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). Bishop contends that she is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Contrary to Bishop’s contention, the district court properly calculated her amended Guidelines range without considering the four-level fast-track departure that the court granted at her original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 555 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Bishop received a 70-month sentence, which is below the amended Guidelines range, the district court properly denied her motion for a sentence reduction. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”). AFFIRMED. 2 16-50058