NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30084
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00035-DWM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM JOSEPH VOTH, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William Joseph Voth, Jr., appeals 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.
Voth contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
*
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).
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 record makes clear that the
district court imposed Voth’s sentence for reasons unrelated to the guideline range
lowered by Amendment 782. Voth is, therefore, ineligible for a sentence reduction
because 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); United
States v. Rodriguez-Soriano, 855 F.3d 1040, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30084