United States v. Manuel Valle

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-10156 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00213-MCE v. MEMORANDUM* MANUEL VALLE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2017** Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Manuel Valle 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. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), 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). Valle contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that Valle 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. Moreover, because the court lacked authority to reduce Valle’s sentence, it had no reason to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010). AFFIRMED. 2 16-10156