United States v. Socorro Loya-Chavez ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-10009
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:98-cr-00133-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SOCORRO LOYA-CHAVEZ, a.k.a. Carlos
Guerro,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Socorro Loya-Chavez 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.
Loya-Chavez contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under
*
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).
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. We review de novo whether a
district court has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2). See
United States v. Wesson, 583 F.3d 728, 730 (9th Cir. 2009). Loya-Chavez was
sentenced as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Thus, his sentence was not
“based on” a Guideline that was lowered by Amendment 782, and he is ineligible
for a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); Wesson, 583 F.3d at 731. The
Supreme Court cases Loya-Chavez cites do not support a contrary result.
Moreover, Loya-Chavez is incorrect that the district court could have reduced his
sentence to account for alleged sentencing disparities and his post-sentencing
rehabilitation. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010) (district
court can only consider whether a reduction is warranted under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) if it first determines that a reduction is authorized).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-10009