United States v. Genaro Gasca , 633 F. App'x 470 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MAR 21 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No. 15-10273
    Plaintiff - Appellee,                D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00213-RS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    GENARO GASCA, a.k.a. David Garcia,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 15, 2016**
    Before:        GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Genaro Gasca 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
    . We review de novo whether a district court
    has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.
    *
    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).
    Leniear, 
    574 F.3d 668
    , 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
    Gasca contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
    782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly concluded that
    Gasca is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already at the
    minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)
    (“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment . . . to a term
    that is less than the minimum of the amended guideline range.”); United States v.
    Davis, 
    739 F.3d 1222
    , 1224 (9th Cir. 2014). We reject Gasca’s argument that
    section 1B1.10(b), as revised by the Sentencing Commission in 2011, violates his
    right to due process. See Dillon v. United States, 
    560 U.S. 817
    , 828 (2010)
    (“[T]he sentence-modification proceedings authorized by § 3582(c)(2) are not
    constitutionally compelled.”); United States v. Tercero, 
    734 F.3d 979
    , 983-84 (9th
    Cir. 2013) (“[T]he [2011] revisions to § 1B1.10 fall squarely within the scope of
    Congress’s articulated role for the Commission.”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                   15-10273
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-10273

Citation Numbers: 633 F. App'x 470

Judges: Goodwin, Leavy, Christen

Filed Date: 3/21/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024