NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30173
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:02-cr-00399-JO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PATRICE LUMUMBA FORD, a.k.a. Larry
Jackson, a.k.a. Lumumba,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Patrice Lumumba Ford appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion
for a sentence reduction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Ford argues that remand is warranted for the district court to consider
*
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).
whether to recommend that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) place Ford in a
community corrections facility, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B), and
whether to invite the BOP to file a motion to reduce his term of imprisonment in
light of “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Though pro se motions are to be liberally construed, see
Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), not even the most liberal
construction reveals these arguments in Ford’s pro se motion for a sentence
reduction in the district court. Accordingly, we decline to consider them. See
United States v. Pimentel-Flores, 339 F.3d 959, 967 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Issues not
presented to the district court cannot generally be raised for the first time on
appeal.” (internal citations omitted)). Furthermore, the district court properly
determined, and Ford does not dispute, that Ford is not entitled to a sentence
reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S.
476 (2011), or United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Ford’s motion for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30173