United States v. John Ogburn , 667 F. App'x 683 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 01 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30319
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:04-cr-00084-CCL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN MEADE OGBURN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
John Meade Ogburn appeals from the district court’s order granting 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.
*
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).
The district court reduced Ogburn’s sentence from 260 months to 240
months based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Ogburn claims
that the district court erred by failing to reduce his sentence further. Specifically,
he argues that the 240-month mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)
is no longer applicable because his prior state felony drug conviction has been
reclassified as a misdemeanor under California’s Proposition 47. This claim does
not support a further reduction under section 3582(c)(2). See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2); Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 826, 831 (aspects of appellant’s
sentence not affected by Commission’s amendment to the Guidelines are “outside
the scope” of the proceeding authorized by section 3582(c)(2)). The district court
therefore did not err by imposing the mandatory minimum sentence. See United
States v. Sykes, 658 F.3d 1140, 1148 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30319