United States v. Steve Rankin , 540 F. App'x 776 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             OCT 02 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50252
    Plaintiff - Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00093-CAS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    STEVE RANKIN,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted, September 24, 2013 **
    Before:        RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Steve Rankin appeals from the district court’s order denying his 
    18 U.S.C. § 3582
    (c)(2) motion for reduction of sentence. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm.
    Rankin contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under the Fair
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Sentencing Act and subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines because
    a reduction was expressly contemplated in the parties’ binding plea agreement
    under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). We review de novo
    whether a district court has authority to modify a defendant’s sentence under
    section 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Austin, 
    676 F.3d 924
    , 926 (9th Cir. 2012).
    The district court correctly determined that Rankin is not eligible for a
    sentence reduction because his sentence was based on a stipulation in the parties’
    binding plea agreement, and not on a sentencing range that has been subsequently
    lowered by the Sentencing Commission, as required by section 3582(c)(2). See 
    id. 927-28
    . The plea agreement does not call for Rankin to be sentenced within a
    particular Guidelines sentencing range nor, contrary to Rankin’s contention, is any
    such Guidelines range expressly used in the agreement or evident from the
    agreement itself. Accordingly, the district court lacked authority to modify
    Rankin’s sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See 
    id. at 928, 930
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       12-50252
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50252

Citation Numbers: 540 F. App'x 776

Judges: Rawlinson, Smith, Christen

Filed Date: 10/2/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024