NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30289
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 9:04-cr-00035-DWM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHANE DOUGLAS HOSKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Shane Douglas Hoskins 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).
Hoskins 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). Contrary to Hoskins’s
argument, his guidelines range remained life even under Amendment 782. Thus,
his sentence was not “based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been
lowered by the Sentencing Commission,” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and the district
court correctly concluded that he was ineligible for a sentence reduction. See
Leniear, 574 F.3d at 673; see also United States v. Ornelas, 825 F.3d 548, 552-53
(9th Cir. 2016) (defendant’s applicable guideline range is determined without
consideration of any departure or variance). Hoskins’s argument that the court
nevertheless had discretion to grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 825-30 (2010).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30289