United States v. Devon Jones ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30226
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-00517-RE
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEVON DUCHAUNT JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
James A. Redden, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Devon Duchaunt Jones appeals pro se 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.
*
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).
Jones contends that he is eligible for a sentence reduction because his
Guideline range at sentencing was calculated under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 and that
range was subsequently lowered by Amendment 750 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. Pleasant, 704 F.3d 808, 810 (9th
Cir. 2013).
To determine whether a sentence reduction is warranted under section
3582(c)(2), the court must calculate the Guidelines range that would have been
applicable to the defendant if the amendment had been in effect at the time the
defendant was sentenced. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1). Jones is a career offender
and, had the amendment been in effect at his sentencing, the applicable Guidelines
range would have been the career offender range. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). That
range is identical to the range used at his original sentencing. Therefore,
Amendment 750 did not lower Jones’s applicable Guidelines range, and he is
ineligible for a sentence reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10
cmt. n.1(A); United States v. Waters, 648 F.3d 1114, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2011).
In light of this disposition, we decline to reach Jones’s remaining
contentions.
AFFIRMED.