United States v. Jose Aguilar, Jr. , 633 F. App'x 471 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30072
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00004-BMM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE AGUILAR, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 15, 2016**
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Aguilar, 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. We review de novo whether the district court has authority to
*
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).
modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v. Leniear, 574 F.3d
668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
Aguilar contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction under
Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court properly
concluded that Aguilar is ineligible for a reduction because his 168-month sentence
is already at the bottom of his amended guideline range. See U.S.S.G.
§ 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (district court may not reduce a sentence “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). Contrary to Aguilar’s contention, his “applicable
guideline range” is determined without consideration of any departure or variance
applied at his original sentencing. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(A); United
States v. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 812 (9th Cir. 2013).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30072